ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Band D Council Tax

John Howell: By how much band D council tax has increased in Henley in (a) absolute and (b) percentage terms since 1997-98.

Hazel Blears: Before I respond to the hon. Gentleman's question, I would like to take the opportunity to apologise to the House for inadvertently disclosing some information this morning, just a few minutes before it was contained in a written ministerial statement to the House. I have apologised to the Prime Minister. I take this matter very seriously indeed, and I would therefore like to apologise to the House.
	The average band D council tax, including parish precepts, in south Oxfordshire—Henley—has increased by £830, or 129 per cent., since 1997-98. In England as a whole, the increases in the same period are £726 and 106 per cent.

John Howell: Given the higher rate of increase in my constituency compared with the position nationally, will the Secretary of Secretary now apologise for the pressure that she has put on council tax by the below-inflation grant settlements given to my district and county councils, by the unfunded additional burdens that she has put on to them, and by the pressure on the funding of core services through the way she is dealing with ring-fenced grants?

Hazel Blears: I have made one apology today, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly do not propose to make another in the terms that the hon. Gentleman has requested. I am quite astounded by his question in many ways. I am sure that he will know that under this Government there has been a 39 per cent. real-terms increase in grants to local government, whereas under his party's Government there was a 7 per cent. real-terms cut in the last four years. He knows that in this current period there is almost an extra £9 billion for local authorities across this country to continue to provide support and help to their communities.

David Taylor: The Secretary of State mentioned the figures for England—an approximate doubling that is an average of 6 per cent. over the 12-year period. Is it not the case that during the period before we came into office, when council tax was still operating in the last days of the Conservative Government, the average annual increase was very much the same, at 6 per cent.? Does she think that perhaps Conservatives protest too much, or is it down to the fact that innumeracy is a prerequisite of being selected by a Conservative association?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes some very pertinent points about the funding of local government. Local authorities have to be aware of the costs of council tax to their residents, absolutely rightly, but they also provide a whole range of really important services, whether in adult social care, education, or recycling and the environment. This Government have enabled local authorities to continue to provide those services. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is still the case that in local authority terms, Labour costs you £204 less than Tory councils.

Bob Neill: I am sure that the whole house will welcome the right hon. Lady's initial remarks. While she is in the vein of apology, will she continue that by apologising for her persistent habit of quoting figures and comparisons in terms of average council tax, given that that methodology has been dismissed by the Library as inappropriate—the different mix of dwelling values means there cannot be a like comparison—and has been described by the respected academic, Professor Tony Travers, as "not respectable"? Will the Minister resort to like-to-like comparisons of band D, which show that Conservative councils invariably cost less?

Hazel Blears: What people are really bothered about is what they pay. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that in relation to band D council tax, Labour increases are 2.8 per cent., Tory increases are 3.3 per cent., and Liberal Democrat increases are 3.2 per cent. Labour certainly does cost people less.

Gypsy Caravans

James Gray: What estimate she has made of the number of Gypsy caravans which are illegally parked on (a) land owned by caravan owners and (b) other land.

Iain Wright: The count of Gypsy and Traveller caravans in England undertaken in July 2008 showed that there were 2,240 caravans on land owned by Gypsies without planning permission and 1,750 caravans on land not owned by Gypsies. This demonstrates the need to provide more authorised sites for Gypsies and Travellers.

James Gray: Last Saturday, a large group of Travellers moved on to a site at Hullavington in my constituency, which they own but for which they have no planning permission, and immediately lodged an application for retrospective planning permission. If the recent experience at Minety, also in my constituency, is anything to go by, they will be allowed to stay on that site, either permanently or at least temporarily, for the very reason that they are Gypsies. How can that be justified alongside the experience of my constituent, Miss Tina Johnston, in neighbouring Box, who is not a Gypsy but lives in a caravan on her farm? She has recently been thrown off the farm because she does not have planning permission; meanwhile, down the road, the Gypsies are being allowed to stay on the site because they are Gypsies. Surely there should be one law for Gypsies and for settled people.

Iain Wright: On there being one law for Gypsies and Travellers and one law for the settled community, I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. There is one law for this country, and it is applied equally to Gypsies and Travellers and to the settled community. On the specific example that he gives, he will realise that, because of the Secretary of State's role in the planning process, I cannot possibly comment. However, I can say in general terms that retrospective planning applications are a respected part of our planning process that is used for Gypsies and Travellers and for the settled community.
	I recommend that people, whether they are Gypsies, Travellers or members of the settled community, work closely with their local authorities. There is not an automatic assumption that when there is development on land, planning permission will be granted. A comprehensive and co-ordinated accommodation needs assessment for Gypsies and Travellers will provide local authorities with much greater tools.

Julie Morgan: The recent report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission showed that reasonable progress had been made on providing enough authorised Gypsy and Traveller sites, but that the Government will not reach their targets by 2011 unless a greater effort is made. What does my hon. Friend suggest can be done to ensure that we reach those targets and thus prevent the problem of illegal sites?

Iain Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for the question and pay tribute to her fantastic work in her role as chair of the all-party group on the matter. Good progress has been made, as she suggests, but it is very important that we have a degree of political consensus. It is in no one's interests for Gypsies and Travellers to be set against the settled community. We need a comprehensive range of accommodation needs assessments in place to ensure that authorised sites are brought forward; otherwise, we will have community tensions and increased enforcement costs for local authorities and taxpayers. That is in no one's interests, so I hope that Members in all parts of the House—and, crucially, local authorities—can work together to ensure that we bring forward those much-needed accommodation assessments.

David Lidington: May I put it to the Minister that his claims that we have a planning system that treats everyone equally are at odds with the recent experience of my constituents in Prince's Risborough? Over the Easter weekend, Travellers moved on to land that they own that is both green belt and part of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. They are now using retrospective planning applications to try to defeat efforts by the district council to enforce stop orders and see the land restored. It is this business whereby people who pre-empt the planning system seem to gain an advantage that arouses such indignation and resentment from people who play by the rules.

Iain Wright: I reiterate many of the comments that I made to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). Retrospective planning applications are a fundamental part of our planning process and apply equally—I stress the word "equally"—to Gypsies and Travellers and to members of the settled community.  [Interruption.] As with the hon. Gentleman's point, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) knows that I cannot comment on specific matters, but he mentions green belt, and there is an automatic presumption against inappropriate development on green belt land. Gypsies and Travellers— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It must not be the case that when an hon. Member asks a question, he keeps interrupting the Minister. That is just not right.

Iain Wright: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is an automatic presumption against inappropriate development of green belt land. Gypsy and Traveller accommodation sites are classed firmly as inappropriate development in the planning guidance, and I imagine that the hon. Gentleman's local planning authority will take that into account.

Ann Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that where local authorities provide good facilities for Travellers, including an adequate number of pitches, by and large Travellers will not go on illegal sites? Also, the local authority will gain from them by charging a decent rent.

Iain Wright: As ever, my hon. Friend makes incredibly sensible points. She is absolutely right. The provision of more authorised sites reduces tension and enforcement costs and ensures that we have good community relations between Gypsy and Traveller communities and settled communities. The identification and provision of more authorised sites is the way to go to ensure that we can deal with this problem.

Nadine Dorries: The Minister mentioned in an earlier answer the necessity for a qualitative needs assessment of Gypsies and Travellers. Does he agree that any assessment should take into account both health care and education and employment needs, and that any sensible assessment would conclude that Gypsy and Traveller sites need to be near dentists, doctors, hospitals, schools and employment? They should be near to where those facilities are available—not in rural villages where there is no public transport and no such services, miles from anywhere.

Iain Wright: I agree with the hon. Lady—she is right about access to health care and other public services. There are huge disparities and inequalities between Gypsies' and Travellers' life expectancy and educational attainment, and those of the settled community. It is the Government's job to try to help address that. Provision of sites close to health facilities such as dentists' and doctors' surgeries, and to good schools, is vital, but there are of course good schools, dentists and doctors in rural areas, too. Local areas and authorities are best placed to assess that.

Homeowner Mortgage Support Scheme

Andrew MacKay: What progress has been made on the introduction of the homeowner mortgage support scheme.

Margaret Beckett: I am pleased to announce that homeowner mortgage support is now available to help home owners remain in their home if they fall on difficult times. It will enable eligible borrowers to reduce their monthly mortgage interest payments to affordable levels for up to two years to help them get back on track with their finances if they suffer a temporary loss of income. The scheme is part of the Government's comprehensive offer of real help for home owners who are struggling to keep up with their mortgage payments.

Andrew MacKay: Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the homeowner mortgage support scheme in December, more than 25,000 homes have been repossessed. Why has action taken so long? Will the Minister apologise to all those families who lost their homes unnecessarily, due to the Government's incompetence?

Margaret Beckett: As the right hon. Gentleman might have observed if he paid attention to the House's agenda, we had to change the law to allow us to continue with the scheme, and then we had to put in place the detailed arrangements that underpin it.
	As for apologising, I am, of course, sorry as always when people lose their homes, but the right hon. Gentleman should know that the scheme is not the only thing that the Government have done. The court protocol has been in place for some time; the legal desk advice that we have given— [Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head—35,000 families dealt with the legal desks last year. There is also the extra support for the Department for Work and Pensions' enhanced mortgage interest scheme. The Government have done a whole string of things, but we wish to do more—and we are doing more.

Alan Simpson: I am concerned about families whose evictions are not likely to be averted by the scheme as it stands. Will the Minister consider a scheme whereby local authorities are empowered to take over as the mortgage provider, so that a problem of unemployment is not compounded by the tragedy of being made homeless at the same time?

Margaret Beckett: We are always willing to examine any ideas and proposals, but my hon. Friend may be mistaken in thinking that there are people whom the scheme would not help, and who therefore need to rely on local authorities. In our proposals, the combination of lenders directly involved in the Government scheme—those who will implement it in a few days, when they have completed their administrative arrangements—and those who provide comparable help through their own sets of proposals, means that about 80 per cent. of lenders will take action along those lines.

Julia Goldsworthy: The launch of the homeowner mortgage support scheme today is welcome, albeit belated news. What is the Minister doing to work with the Treasury to ensure that the Financial Services Authority requires lenders to publish information about how they will treat borrowers if they fall into arrears? Rather than simply issuing guidance to the court, does not the law need to be tightened so that the pre-action protocol can be enforced? Is that not the best way in which to ensure that repossession is the last resort?

Margaret Beckett: We are prepared to consider whether there is a greater need, but our understanding is that the pre-action protocol is working quite well, and that applications for a court order have been turned down in several cases. The FSA and the financial services ombudsman will monitor the scheme's operation and keep a close eye on its effectiveness. That is one reason for hoping that it will be effective in helping many thousands—perhaps tens of thousands—of families to stay in their homes.

Sally Keeble: I welcome the announcement that my right hon. Friend has made. Can she say how home owners will be able to access one-stop-shop advice about the different schemes that the Government are bringing forward to support home owners who face difficulties at the present time?

Margaret Beckett: A number of advice agencies are working with us, including Shelter, Citizens Advice, the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, National Debtline and Payplan. All are geared up to answer questions and to take people not only through the current scheme, but through the range of other help that the Government have already made available. I entirely share my hon. Friend's wish to see that people are made aware of what can be done. The information is also now available on various websites.

Grant Shapps: The Prime Minister upstaged his own Queen's Speech back on 3 December, announcing the mortgage support scheme by saying:
	"Today I want to offer to families worrying about their mortgages...protection".—[ Official Report, 3 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 35.]
	Yet five months later, that headline-grabber has still not helped a single family out there, so I repeat the call of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). Will the Housing Minister use this Question Time to apologise to some of the 28,700 families whose homes have been repossessed since then, particularly given that the Prime Minister suggested at the time that the Government's scheme would cover 70 per cent. of the mortgage market, whereas an analysis of this morning's statement suggests that the scheme—the part that the Government have directly negotiated—will cover just 25 per cent. of the mortgage market? Is not the Minister once again in danger of raising expectations, only for them to be dashed when homes are repossessed?

Margaret Beckett: I have had the benefit of seeing the press release that the hon. Gentleman issued on the matter, which has the benefit of being wrong in two instances and of calling the scheme a proposal without substance. All I would say to him is that only the Conservative party would think that a proposal that attracts the support of 80 per cent. of the mortgage market is a proposal without substance.
	When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced our plans to go ahead with the scheme, he was extremely anxious, as was I—the hon. Gentleman will recall this, if he casts his mind back—to stress how important it is for people, first, to recognise that help can be made available; secondly, to go to their lenders for advice; and thirdly, to take independent financial advice. We thought it right then—and we think it right now—to draw people's attention to those issues and, in particular, to the fact that there are already four or five other means of help available, but only to quite a narrowly defined group of people. That is why we thought it necessary to introduce the scheme, but of course it takes time to work up such details.
	I am not familiar with the figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes, but they must, I think, be wrong. My understanding is that— [ Interruption. ] Well, they bear no comparison with any figures that have come from anyone else. I would simply say to him, first, that about 50 per cent. of mortgage lenders are participating directly in the scheme that the Government are offering and are able to take advantage of the guarantee that the Government have put in place. Secondly, in total 80 per cent. of mortgage lenders are either in the Government scheme or are offering provisions comparable to it. That is why we believe that it will be able to help many tens of thousands of people.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman, like the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay), called on me to apologise to those who, despite the help that the Government have already made available, have lost their homes in the interim period. I am extremely sorry that those people lost their homes. As the House will know, in every year there are repossessions, despite, in this instance, help being made available by the Government. However, I am lost in admiration for the sheer gall of the Conservatives, who did not lift a finger to help a single family during the recessions of the '80s and '90s. All they did was to offer funds to buy up houses that had been repossessed, so we really do not need any lectures from them.

Clive Betts: I very much welcome the scheme and the fact that it will help many thousands of people who otherwise might lose their homes. I also welcome the commitment to give publicity through the lenders, but could we also ensure that local councils are encouraged to give publicity? Finally, could we have a comprehensive monitoring arrangement put in place to look at the various schemes that help people in mortgage difficulties, and see whether some people might still fall through the various nets that are available, particularly private tenants, whose tenancies are put at risk when the owner of the property defaults on their mortgage?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will be relieved to hear that he shares the view of the consumer organisations, which have strongly welcomed both the scheme that the Government have put in place and the speed at which we have been able to do so. That is completely unprecedented—the Conservatives did not lift a finger last time, as I said, so no one has any experience of putting forward such a scheme. In fact, the only people who have so far not welcomed what the Government are doing are the Conservatives.
	I entirely share my hon. Friend's view: we are very concerned and we are continuing to pursue the issue, especially the problem of tenants who may well be continuing to pay their rent in the proper way, but whose landlord may be defaulting on the mortgage. We have already put provisions in place whereby there should be a greater period of notice, but I take the view—I am confident that my hon. Friend, and perhaps the whole House, will share it—that although having seven or eight weeks' notice to quit because the landlord has not paid the mortgage is better than two weeks, it still means that the person is without a home. We are looking as a matter of urgency to see whether more can be done here.

Infrastructure Planning Commission

Jacqui Lait: What her most recent assessment is of the effect on the Planning Inspectorate of the establishment of the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

Margaret Beckett: About 30,000 cases were received by the Planning Inspectorate in 2008-09. Of those, only 34 would have gone to and been considered by the Infrastructure Planning Commission, had it been in operation, and only 12 of those would have been dealt with by the inspectorate, had they all proceeded to inquiry. That is less than 0.05 per cent. of the cases received by the inspectorate in 2008-09, so we believe that the impact will be minimal.

Jacqui Lait: Given the likelihood that planning strategies will be in place for infrastructure, does the right hon. Lady really believe that only 12 planning applications will go in front of the IPC and that there will be only a minimal impact on the Planning Inspectorate? Is she really intending that so few planning inspectors should move from the Planning Inspectorate? Does she really believe that nobody will be hired to replace people in the Planning Inspectorate from local authorities? What impact does she expect that to have on housing, and why do not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me say to the Minister for Housing that if she answers only one supplementary question, that would be fine.

Margaret Beckett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	If the hon. Lady, who clearly has a number of detailed questions about the work of the Planning Inspectorate, would like to write to me, I would be happy to reply providing more detail in response to the different issues she wishes to raise. We think that about 34 cases would have gone to the IPC. The House needs to recognise and take into account the fact that a completely new—and, we believe, much better—system is being put in place whereby policy statements will be made about the overall issues, and then individual applications will be assessed against those policy statements. That, we believe, will simplify and streamline the process. That is why we believe that it will have a beneficial impact—not the impact that the hon. Lady suggests.

Paddy Tipping: Is it not in everybody's interests to ensure that planning applications are dealt with as quickly as possible? When the IPC helps to achieve that, will it not have the knock-on effect of speeding up the present Planning Inspectorate?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In so far as one can assess these matters, we believe that the average time of about 100 weeks for major applications should come down to about 35 weeks. Assessments have been made of savings of some £300 million a year as a result of a more streamlined system. The emphasis placed on pre-application consultation will, I believe, be beneficial to the constituents of every hon. Member. People will have a clear understanding of what might be being proposed at a stage when it is possible to influence the shape of those proposals.

Caroline Spelman: The Infrastructure Planning Commission is set to cost taxpayers £15 million in the first year and £9 million for every year after that. Based on an estimate of 34 cases, that is going to be quite a lot of money per case. Given that even Sir Michael Pitt has admitted that it will be subject to legal challenges, how much taxpayers' money does the Minister estimate will be spent on judicial review cases in the UK and further disputes in the European Court of Justice? I am sure that Members of all parties anticipate belt tightening in tomorrow's Budget, so would not the best way to start be to remove a bit of quango flab, such as the IPC?

Margaret Beckett: I am interested to learn that that remains the view of the Conservatives, because the business community has made plain—not least when the Planning Act 2008 was going through the House of Lords—that it totally disagrees with them. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) a moment ago, the assessment is that, on average, the establishment of the IPC will save around £300 million a year. The hon. Lady may think that of no significance, but I assure her that the business community does not.

Violent Extremism (Prevention)

David Davies: What recent representations she has received on the Government's programme to prevent violent extremism.

Hazel Blears: I receive a wide range of representations relating to the Government's Preventing Violent Extremism programme, and my Department has regular contact with community groups from across the country as well as with the three advisory groups for young Muslims, Muslim women and the local delivery of our Prevent programmes.

David Davies: When I last raised this issue, I asked the Secretary of State for an assurance that not one penny of Government money was being given to extremists or to violent extremists. She was unable to give me that assurance at the time, but the Department has now had a year to look into the issue. Can we possibly be given an assurance today that not one penny of Government money is being given to extremists. If not, why not?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that he has raised the issue before. I am delighted to be able to tell him about the range of work that has been done in the last 12 months. First, extensive guidance was published for all local authorities in June last year, setting out exactly the criteria according to which groups should be funded. We fund groups that stand up to tackle violent extremism and uphold our shared values. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that following a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), I undertook to place in the Library of the House, by the end of April, full details—they are held in our Government offices—of the projects being funded.

Dari Taylor: Many people of different ethnicity live in my constituency. A number of them believe that they are seen as second-class citizens and are undervalued in the community, which has led to the view that that fuels violent extremism. Has the problem been drawn to my right hon. Friend's attention over the past year, and if so, what is her Department doing to resolve it?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has raised this matter in a typically sensitive way. As she suggests, young people in particular become radicalised for a range of reasons, some of which relate to social conditions in their areas in connection with deprivation and poverty. The Government as a whole are tackling those issues. My hon. Friend will be aware of the range of tremendously positive projects that are being undertaken with, in particular, young Muslims and women in our communities. I am afraid that we hear far too little about the huge range of community work being done by dedicated people to try to ensure that young people in this country have a positive sense of their identity in the future, regardless of their ethnic background, and feel properly valued.

Paul Goodman: As the Secretary of State has answered this question herself, may I first say to her that we believe she had no alternative to the course that she took in suspending relations with the Muslim Council of Britain?
	Let me now return to the question. The House will have noted that, for the second time, the Secretary of State was unable to give my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) the guarantee that he seeks that extremists have not got their hands on taxpayers' money. As I know from correspondence with her, the reason is simple: no system exists to check who receives the cash before it is given. That is frankly scandalous. Can the Secretary of State at least guarantee that when she publishes information on where last year's Preventing Violent Extremism money went—she has promised to do so—she will publish the details of who received the money, down to the very last penny?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that there is no system for checking the allocation of those funds to community groups. There is a system, for local authorities, the police and a range of other organisations, to ensure that the funds are allocated to groups that uphold our shared values and are committed to standing up to tackle extremism.
	I have told the hon. Gentleman that this is not a ring-fenced grant, for the very reason that we want the work to be embedded as mainstream work for local authorities, and to draw in funding from other sources to ensure that it can be done in a proper, comprehensive fashion. I have also told him that we will place the information in the Library. We have told local authorities that the grant is not ring-fenced, but because of its exceptionally sensitive nature, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), has written to local authorities saying that we will continue to monitor it extremely carefully. The hon. Gentleman must accept, however, that if we want this work to be embedded as mainstream activity, we must be prepared to make sure we are working in proper, effective partnership with our local authorities.

Rob Marris: The Department's funding for tackling violent extremism and enhancing community cohesion is welcome, but may I caution the Secretary of State that there is a growing feeling among certain ethnic minority groups, particularly the Sikhs, that her Department has not got the balance right and that it keeps throwing money at Muslims—we understand why—and is ignoring other groups? I urge her to look at that balance again; will she assure me that she will do so?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend is right that concern is sometimes expressed among a variety of groups, and I am therefore keen not simply to work with the Muslim community, because tackling violent extremism in our country is not an issue for the Muslim community on its own; we must all make sure that we have resilient communities. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are now doing much more work across a wider section of the faith community—the inter-faith week will be held later this year. I am also keen to do more to tackle far-right extremism. All of us want to create communities where hatred and division have no part to play.

Building Developments (Access)

Peter Bone: What planning guidance applies in respect of access to public sector building developments by means of transport other than car.

Iain Wright: Planning policy guidance note 13 on transport encourages access to public sector building developments by sustainable transport modes. It requires travel plans, which evaluate site access, for applications with significant transport implications. The transport options are then agreed with local authorities and transport providers as part of the planning process.

Peter Bone: I am so grateful to the Minister for that reply that I almost want to sit down, but in my constituency the NHS is moving an out-patient facility from the centre of the largest town in the district to which 20 per cent. of people travel either on foot or by public transport to a small town whose bus service runs only once an hour and which is obviously inaccessible to most pedestrians. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what appears to be a flagrant breach of planning policy?

Iain Wright: I would certainly be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. In respect of the provision of health facilities—or, indeed, of any major improvements to public services—a local planning authority would need to ask about the travel plans and travel assessments required to allow customers to use such facilities. I imagine that the local planning authority did that in this instance, but I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman shortly to discuss the matter.

Retained Firefighters

Mark Harper: What representations she has received on the effect on retained firefighters of the abolition of the working time directive opt-out.

Sadiq Khan: I have received a number of written representations about the potential impact on firefighters working a retained duty system of the abolition of the working time directive opt-out, including from hon. Members, Members of the Scottish Parliament, and the Retained Firefighters Union. I also had a meeting with the president and national general secretary of the RFU earlier this month at which the loss of the opt-out was discussed. I have also received representations from members of the Local Government Association fire services forum and others.

Mark Harper: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. In my constituency of Forest of Dean our fire service is provided solely by retained firefighters. I have had the opportunity to go on a training exercise with those based in Cinderford to see their excellent work. Given the importance of that opt-out, without which the Chief Fire Officers Association has said the retained service could not function, why have Labour MEPs been voting against retaining it, thereby letting down the people of my constituency and our country?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that retained firefighters do an invaluable job. He referred to his rural constituency, but there are 17 fire and rescue authorities where retained firefighters comprise more than 50 per cent. of the operational work force. The Government take the possibility of the opt-out very seriously. We are in conciliation talks with the European Commission, representatives of the European Parliament and the presidency, which represents the Council of Ministers, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the next round of conciliation talks is set for 23 April and we are keen to ensure we have the proper resilience arrangements in place by keeping the opt-out.

Andy Reed: I am pleased to hear that the Government are at least trying to keep the opt-out, because it is vital in constituencies such as mine—fire stations in places such as Shepshed rely totally on a retained fire service crew, and they do a fantastic job. Can the Minister assure us that he will battle for that service? Can he also indicate to the House the likelihood of his being successful on 23 April? If he is unsuccessful, what further steps will we be able to take to ensure that our retained firefighters continue to do an excellent job right across the country?

Sadiq Khan: Let me put my hon. Friend's comments into context. He will be aware that, geographically speaking, 90 per cent. of the country is served by retained firefighters. We understand their importance and the role that they play, which is why we have been robust in the conciliation talks. He will be pleased to hear that, as I have said, the next round of talks will take place on 23 April, and that an agreement must be reached by the first week of May or the dossier and the amendments voted in December will fall.

Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is clearly trying to deal with this matter in a very sensitive and realistic way, but does not this whole issue of retained firemen—there are a number in my constituency and they play a vital and valuable role in the fire and rescue service—show that it is inappropriate for such matters to be dealt with on a Europe-wide basis, given that the culture and practices in this country can be very different from those in other countries of the European Union? Will he give a guarantee today that we will continue to exercise the opt-out?

Sadiq Khan: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the UK Government will not accept any amendment that phases out the opt-out or implies that it will be phased out. This is a crucial priority not only for the UK Government, but for many other member states that use the opt-out and have been very important allies to the UK Government.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister conveniently body-swerved the very direct substantive question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper). The House will know that on December 13 Labour MEPs voted to abandon the UK's opt-out from the working time directive—the Chief Fire Officers Association has said that such a policy would mean that the fire service could not function effectively. Does the Minister accept that as his party is completely divided on this issue and its MEPs are voting against our national interest, the UK's negotiating position is weaker as a consequence of that split?

Sadiq Khan: I am trying to take this point seriously, as I have been invited to do, but the idea of being lectured about European unity and MEPs by a Conservative Member involves breathtaking hypocrisy—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I urge the hon. Member to avoid using such terms and to use temperate language.

Sadiq Khan: The UK Government are committed to defending the opt-out and other flexibilities in the common position agreed by the Council of Ministers last June. We would like an agreement to be reached—as I said, the next round of talks is on 23 April—but not at any price. I have indicated our views on the opt-out, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware from an earlier conversation between us of the respect that I have for retained firefighters. They do an invaluable job, and the fire and rescue authorities around the country would not be able to do their fantastic job without them.

House Building

Sharon Hodgson: What recent discussions she has had with representatives of the construction industry on the prospects for house building during the credit crunch.

Margaret Beckett: The Department has regular dialogue with the industry, both through representative trade bodies and individual companies throughout the supply chain, as well as through participation in round-table meetings, seminars and other forums. The downturn in house building levels has featured regularly in those discussions, as have many other issues facing the industry.

Sharon Hodgson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the need to keep people in their jobs, it is essential that we maintain capacity in the construction industry, both in the north-east and across the country, so that when the upturn comes we can get straight down to building the quantity of quality new homes that this country will need?

Margaret Beckett: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. She may know that it has long been my view that one of the many mistakes made during the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s was not to prepare for the upturn, but to assume that when it came things would just sort themselves out. As a result, the construction industry lost so much capacity and so many skills that it was some 10 years before it recovered. That is why we are determined to provide the kind of help and support now that we hope can substantially shorten that period of recovery.

Sarah Teather: If the Minister is concerned about the future of the construction industry, what representations did she make to the Chancellor about including a cut in VAT on renovation and rebuild in the Budget tomorrow?

Margaret Beckett: All I can say is that policy conversations between Ministers are best kept between Ministers rather than discussed across the Floor of the House, especially if one hopes that those policy conversations will bear fruit.

Topical Questions

Neil Turner: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Hazel Blears: My Department continues to focus on helping people through the recession through practical measures, such as our town centre strategy to try to fill up empty shops, and to build strong, cohesive communities where people want to live, work and bring up their families.

Neil Turner: I understand that the ring-fencing of the Supporting People programme will be abolished shortly—which I welcome—and the money will be included in the base funding for local authorities. I urge my right hon. Friend to take this opportunity to ensure that that money goes to local authorities on the basis of measured need, rather than historical spending patterns.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has a proud record of making the case for the allocation of resources on the basis of need and ensuring that we address deprivation in particular communities. I am pleased that he welcomes the un-ring-fencing of the Supporting People grant, for the very reasons that we debated earlier today. If we give more freedom and flexibility to local authorities, we often get better results from spending. I will certainly take notice of the points that he has made today about allocation on the basis of need and will report back to him fully.

Richard Ottaway: The Secretary of State will have sat in many Cabinet meetings and agreed that the best way to counter terrorism is through a global effort working closely with our allies. Under the circumstances, was she as concerned as I was to hear the remarks by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan), attacking the use of Predator drones in Pakistan by the United States, no doubt in an attempt to curry favour with one minority or another? Will she remind him of the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility? He cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds on an issue as important as that.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has recently completed a worthwhile and useful visit to Pakistan, where he was able to see at first hand some of the pressures felt. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to work with our international partners to tackle the severe terrorist threat that this country faces, and it is not the case that my hon. Friend was seeking to distance himself from a particular policy. He was rightly drawing to our attention the need to ensure that we are aware of the pressures on a range of communities, both abroad and in this country, and are therefore able to prepare our response accordingly. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend shares absolutely our policies aimed at tackling radicalisation in this country.

Nia Griffith: I am sure that the Secretary of State will be well aware of the economic pressures facing businesses, and I wonder what more her Department can do to encourage more flexible use of shop premises so that we do not see lots of empty shops in our town centres.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has an excellent record, through her membership of the all-party small shops group, on making the case for our local town centres. She will know that last week the Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport and I did some joint work to try to find alternative uses for empty shops, such as for rehearsal spaces or arts activities. The Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills is also interested in local, flexible, informal learning centres in our shopping precincts. We are considering standard legal documentation, temporary leases and other practical measures to give businesses real help during this difficult time.

Andrew George: In rejecting last month the very modest proposals contained in the Taylor report regarding the impact of high levels of second-home ownership in areas such as mine—we are talking about a few areas of the country—the Government referred to the human rights of second-home owners. Given that last year three times as many properties were sold in my constituency to second-home buyers as to first-time buyers, what has the Minister to say about the human rights of the many thousands of families who have not yet got a decent first home? Will she keep the matter under review?

Margaret Beckett: We always keep this matter under review. The hon. Gentleman will know that as a result of representations from Members from all parties who represent rural areas we have very deliberately set targets for the provision of more affordable housing, particularly in small settlements. I take his point entirely about areas in which second homes have a particular impact, but all I can say is that we considered the issue very carefully and we will continue to do so. So far we have found that the difficulties of definition and of deciding at what point such a policy would be triggered are insurmountable. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we continue to consider how we can overcome the impact of the lack of housing on local communities. We believe that that is the way forward.

David Drew: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the work that she has done on community land trusts. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and I have had a very good meeting with Sir Bob Kerslake of the Homes and Communities Agency. Will my right hon. Friend say a few more things about how we can make progress with that very important model of housing, particularly in rural areas, and ensure that my own Cashes Green site is developed as a matter of urgency?

Margaret Beckett: I can assure my hon. Friend, and you, Mr. Speaker, that I was in no danger of forgetting my hon. Friend's concerns about this issue in his constituency and, in particular, about the proposals to which he referred. He is right to say that the Government take very seriously and are very interested in the proposals for community land trusts. I am not surprised but glad to hear that he had a very constructive meeting with Sir Bob Kerslake. I can assure him that the Government are looking to see what further contribution such proposals can make to housing development.

Andrew Pelling: What advice would the Department give to the London borough of Croydon in terms of making a good case for the next set of three-year local government financial settlements? It is very clear that there is real stress on the budget, because the borough has seen the third highest increase in council tax in London while services have been reduced. We have a real dynamic to consider, as we are the host for the Border and Immigration Agency, and dynamic change is also happening with our population and our population make-up.

John Healey: The first piece of advice is that the council should manage what it has got over this three-year settlement well. It should manage it efficiently and do more to tighten its belt, as everybody expects councils to do at the moment. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's council, like many others, will be interested in two areas of work that we have under way at the moment, working closely with local government. The first involves considering the future basis for deciding grants from central Government to local government, while the second involves improving the collection of population and migration statistics. Local government has a big role to play in that and can make a valuable contribution to that work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage his council to do just that.

Celia Barlow: I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on flexibility for the use of empty shops, but I am sure that she would agree that it is best that those shops should not be empty, and that support should be given to our local small businesses, cafés and restaurants. More than 100 constituents and local traders have contacted me, concerned that a large supermarket has shown an interest in opening up in a marvellous area of small shops in my constituency of Hove. Is she considering possible secondary legislation so that the impact on the community and small businesses of such developments can be taken into account in such cases?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. What we also need to do is to try to support businesses so that the shops do not become empty in the first place. That is why we have small business rate relief and why we have allowed a lot of small businesses to defer their pay-as-you-earn, or—PAYE—tax. More than 100,000 businesses have taken advantage of that. My hon. Friend also discussed the impact of large supermarkets, and she will know that in our planning policy statement 6 on town centres, we have done a great deal of work to try to ensure that any possible impact on our town centres is taken extremely seriously when any development is proposed. At the moment, we do not have proposals for legislation, but she will know that the planning framework is crucial to ensuring that those development decisions do not damage the very important vibrancy of our town centres.

Bob Spink: I welcome the Government's policy of restricting development in the green belt, on floodplains and on school playing fields that have been sold off by councils. What would the Minister say to Castle Point borough councillors who want to build hundreds of houses on a school playing field on Canvey Island that is in the floodrisk area and in the green belt?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the caution with which Ministers have to approach comment on planning issues, but we and the Environment Agency always take matters to do with flood risk and development on floodplains very seriously indeed. He may not be aware that a recent reassessment of protection against flood risk has conveyed the fact that we appear to be rather better protected, and for longer, than had been thought until recently. Perhaps, therefore, he may to some extent be able to reassure his constituents—who, like people everywhere in the country, are no doubt keen to get extra housing.

Derek Twigg: There has been a big increase recently in the number of people in my constituency losing their homes, so it is vital that more social housing be constructed and made available as soon as possible. However, new figures published in the past month or so show that my constituency has suffered one of the biggest increases in youth unemployment in the country. Will Ministers ensure that putting in place apprenticeships for young people is given a big priority when discussions are held with representatives of the construction industry and housing associations? Those apprenticeships are needed quickly if we are to alleviate some of the problems that exist now in my constituency.

Iain Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which touches on an extremely important point. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing noted in an earlier answer, we need to learn the lessons of previous recessions and of past failed Governments in this respect. It is absolutely vital that we ensure that young people can get apprenticeships in the construction industry, and that we continue to stimulate local, sub-regional and regional economies with housing as a key feature. I should be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and to visit his area to ensure that what we are doing in terms of social housing in the north-west is appropriate.

Norman Baker: The European Commission has indicated that it is minded to uphold a complaint that I have made against East Sussex county council for breaking procurement rules in respect of its waste contract, and in particular of the hugely unpopular proposed incinerator in Newhaven. On this occasion, my concerns are naturally to do with the Tory council rather than the Government, but nevertheless I understand that the formal notification is likely to come to the Department for Communities and Local Government. Will the Secretary of State agree to arrange for me to have a short meeting with the relevant Minister before she sends a formal response to the European Commission?

Hazel Blears: I am perfectly content to do that, and happy to arrange such a meeting.

Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say when she intends to conclude the review of housing provision and support for survivors of domestic violence, especially in the light of the recent report entitled "Map of Gaps"? Moreover, it was reported recently that the Mayor of London intends to renege on his promise to provide support for victims of domestic violence, and that he will not provide the rape crisis centre that he promised in his manifesto. Would she like to comment on that?

Hazel Blears: I am perfectly happy to report back to my hon. Friend, who has a long record of campaigning for the support of women who are subject to domestic violence. She will be aware that an inter-ministerial working group is looking at a range of support measures to ensure that we reduce domestic violence—on which we have a very proud record—and that we give people the support that they need, where they need it. She also asked about the Mayor of London, and these are clearly very serious matters. I shall certainly investigate them, and come back to her with information as soon as possible.

Greg Mulholland: The "Real help for communities" project has just been announced, with 50 areas benefiting, including Bradford, Wakefield, Kirklees and Calderdale, but not a single penny for Leeds. Can the Secretary of State explain the criteria for the project and why Leeds is not to qualify for any real help for its communities?

John Healey: I and my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench share our puzzlement with the hon. Gentleman's question. None of us recognises the scheme he is talking about, but I am happy to meet him if he wants to lay out the detail. I think he may have the name of the scheme and the funding wrong, but I am happy to explore that with him.

Ann Cryer: May I ask my right hon. Friend to persist in her determination to involve more Pakistani women in the leadership of both community and mosque groups? Should there be resistance to that, such groups should not be in receipt of either Government or local authority money.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend has a very impressive record in being prepared to say sometimes difficult things on this agenda and I am proud of her for doing that. She will know that the National Muslim Women's Advisory Group is comprised of feisty, challenging women from all over the country, and they are absolutely determined that they will take their rightful place in the governance of mosques and the leadership of community organisations. My hon. Friend also makes the point that such values should be reflected in the groups that we sponsor and support through our funding. She is absolutely right.

Tim Farron: Given that national parks are in effect local authorities by a different name and have power over the lives of thousands of British people, does the Secretary of State agree that at least some members of those national parks ought to be directly democratically elected?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am quite a fan of direct elections, and I am certainly keen to ensure that there is as much democracy as possible in our political system. I have never believed that direct democracy is somehow challenging to other organisations. Having said that, I am sure that there will be debate about membership of the national parks organisations. I will certainly examine the issue to see whether it is possible to have more direct democracy in those organisations.

Insolvency (Provision of Information to Employment Agencies)

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Phil Wilson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require insolvency practitioners to provide information regarding redundancies to employment agencies when a company goes into administration within a specified period; and for connected purposes.
	At a time of global recession, and its effect on our economy and our people, this Bill aims to improve the relationship between insolvency practitioners and employment agencies, especially Jobcentre Plus. At present, when a company goes into liquidation there is no duty on the administrator to inform Jobcentre Plus of redundancies. I believe that to be wrong.
	To be fair, some administrators inform Jobcentre Plus and allow access, but not on all occasions. Employees should have access to the help Jobcentre Plus can offer as soon as possible, and it should not be denied. My Bill calls for a requirement to be placed on administrators to inform Jobcentre Plus of a redundancy situation as soon as possible, and invite the agency to meet those facing unemployment when the company is going into liquidation. It is all about putting people first in difficult times.
	Earlier this year, Jobcentre Plus was informed by a company in my constituency that it was going into liquidation. The company informed the redundancy manager at Jobcentre Plus of the insolvency practitioner involved. A series of phone calls took place between the redundancy manager and the practitioner, in which the Jobcentre Plus representative requested access to the employees to issue redundancy packs. The practitioner said they did not want Jobcentre Plus on the site in case it inflamed the situation.
	The redundancy manager was on standby to go to the factory because information had been received that the administrator was holding a meeting with staff on that day. The redundancy manager called the administrator on several occasions only to be told that the meeting had taken place at 8 o'clock that morning and that 175 staff had been made redundant, the majority of whom had been sent home. On hearing that, the redundancy manager immediately went to the site in question and managed to catch between 15 and 20 staff. Redundancy information packs were issued to them and the administrator gave an assurance that it would send the remaining packs to the rest of the work force. When I heard that, the words "stable doors" and "horses bolting" came to mind.
	The majority of staff at the factory had not been made aware before they left the site of the support and services available to them. Many of those made unemployed had worked for more than 20 years and were unaware of the processes and conditions for claiming benefit; nor were they aware of the redundancy support available to them through the rapid response service. Jobcentre Plus was left with the task of trying to identify those customers as they made claims for benefit.
	In another part of the north-east, another company went into liquidation. Staff were not even able to get on to the site to clear their personal effects, as the gates were locked. Jobcentre Plus found out the name of the administrator only through the pages of the local newspaper, and the insolvency practitioner could not help because the staff had all gone home. However, Jobcentre Plus tells me that on other occasions elsewhere in the region it has received excellent support from administrators. They hold joint meetings with employees to talk them through the situation and set out how they can be helped through redundancy. On occasion, redundancy information packs have even been delivered by hand. Those are obviously examples of good practice; if a redundancy situation arises, that is how we would like it to be handled.
	We need to iron out the inconsistencies across the piece, not only among insolvency practitioners, but perhaps at the Jobcentre Plus and Insolvency Service end, too. Between April 2008 and March 2009, there were 3,555 redundancies in County Durham. Of those, 513 were caused by company liquidations. Nationally, the figure stands at over 112,000. I want all those people to be treated the same—with respect, not as another commodity that needs to be sorted out, like a piece of machinery left on the site. We are talking about human beings, many with families, all with hopes and aspirations. The Bill will, I believe, go some way towards ensuring that they are treated with dignity.
	How would such a Bill work in practice? It would oblige the insolvency practitioner to inform Jobcentre Plus of the situation as soon as possible, but before the liquidation is announced, where there are more than 20 employees involved. There will be an obligation on the administrator to work with Jobcentre Plus to prepare employees for redundancy. The employment service can then act in the most professional way possible and use its expertise to help the employees through the most difficult of times.
	Those words and sentiments may be fine, but we need to provide further assistance to insolvency practitioners, Jobcentre Plus and the Insolvency Service. Their relationship needs to be better co-ordinated on the ground. That is why I have already met, both separately and jointly, Jobcentre Plus and R3, the insolvency practitioners' trade body. I intend to meet the Insolvency Service soon. The Department for Work and Pensions needs to provide R3 with hotline telephone numbers, so that administrators have one point of contact in a region. R3 needs to inform Jobcentre Plus of its major practitioners, so that high-level contact can be maintained at all times. The DWP should issue a rapid-response toolkit to insolvency practitioners, so that they can fully engage with the employees and Jobcentre Plus.
	It is to the credit of Jobcentre Plus, the Insolvency Service and R3 that they are ready to look at the problem and to try to resolve it. R3 has assured me that it will work closely with Jobcentre Plus to ensure that people who face redundancy are offered the support and advice that they need. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs has offered me the opportunity to meet the Insolvency Service to discuss the best way of ensuring that insolvency practitioners are aware of their responsibilities and act on them. I know that he has already written to insolvency practitioners, through the Insolvency Service, about the matter.
	The main players—the DWP, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and insolvency practitioners—are nearing the same page, but I want to see them on the same page; that is why the Bill is important. I want the sentiments that I have set out to be put into action. A code of conduct needs to be drawn up, and there should be regular meetings between the partners to ensure that the code of conduct is implemented by all parties. The trade unions agree with the move, too. There must be a role for them in the process, so that the whole architecture of the Bill is based on partnership. I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that his Department will look into introducing trade unions into that partnership.
	I believe fundamentally that the Bill would close a loophole—an important loophole at that—in the Government's approach to helping the unemployed back into work. It is a well-known fact that the sooner someone who is out of work contacts Jobcentre Plus, the sooner they can access work. Today, as a result of the Government's proactive approach to getting people off the dole, 75 per cent. of those out of work still find a job within 6 months. By comparing my experience of this global recession with my experience of the home-grown recessions of the '80s and '90s, I hope to give extra impetus to the passage of the Bill, and give the Government confidence that our approach, which is to help those who are out of work, instead of leaving them to their own devices, is right. Doing nothing is not an option.
	Unemployment in Sedgefield went up from 1,077 in February last year to 2,456 in February this year. The rate of increase has been rapid, but started from a low base. Even with that rate of increase, the present situation does not compare with the recession of the early '90s, and especially not with that of the 1980s. In January 1986, unemployment in Sedgefield hit 5,346. Of those people, more than 2,000 had been out of work for 12 months or more. Today, only 70 people in Sedgefield have been out of work for 12 months or more. The last time unemployment in Sedgefield was about 2,500 was in 1996. Almost 600 of those people—more than one in five—had been out of work for over 12 months.
	Every person made unemployed is not only an economic tragedy but, more importantly, a personal tragedy for the individual and family concerned. That is why the Government have learned the lessons of the 1980s and 1990s. People who find themselves unemployed cannot be left behind. That is why access to Jobcentre Plus is imperative. In February some 250,000 people left jobseeker's allowance and found another job. This proves three things to me: people have better skills sets than they once did, Jobcentre Plus is doing its job by finding jobs for people, and the Government's economic strategy is beginning to work.
	The response that I have received from Ministers, Jobcentre Plus, R3 and others to the issues outlined in my Bill prove that the Government are not complacent and are putting hard-working families at the centre of their actions. My Bill will build on the Government's proactive approach, and will go some way towards ensuring that those made redundant have the earliest possible access to the services provided by Jobcentre Plus. The Government are doing their best to treat those out of work with dignity. The Bill proposes to do the same.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Phil Wilson, Mr. John Heppell, Jim Dowd, Mary Creagh, Dr. Roberta Blackman-Woods, Mr. Jamie Reed, Mr. Kevin Barron, Mr. Ian McCartney, Tony Lloyd, Mrs. Sharon Hodgson, Andrew Miller and Mr. Frank Doran present the Bill.
	Phil Wilson accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 84).

Industry and Exports (financial support) Bill (programme) (no. 2)

Ordered ,
	That the Order of 16 March 2009 (Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 pm at this day's sitting.— (Ian Pearson.)

Industry and Exports (Financial Support) Bill

Considered in Committee

[Sir Alan Haselhurst  in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	Increase in limit on selective financial assistance for industry

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mark Prisk: I welcome you to the Chair, Sir Alan, for the Committee stage of our proceedings.
	Clause 1 amends the cumulative limit on the financial support for business under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. I accept that, as such, it does not authorise actual expenditure, but can the Minister confirm that authorisation for the orders involved, under the new wording, will be made by affirmative resolution? Furthermore, does he accept that it would be good practice that when each order is submitted for debate, it should be accompanied by a detailed update as to the range of schemes involved and their current funding levels?
	At present, the Government publish only an annual report, which is often unrelated to the issuing of the orders in question. It would be more helpful if we in the House had the chance to consider the current schemes at the time when we debate the Government's request to increase their funding limits. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider that carefully and make a specific response in his reply to the debate, should he catch the Chairman's eye.
	On Second Reading the Minister cited as one of the main reasons for moving to a higher limit of £12 billion the Government's wish to switch away from grants and to increase the proportion of support in the form of loans and loan guarantees. Will he therefore tell us what proportion of the current £6 billion is in grants and what proportion is in loans and loan guarantees?
	Overall, the Opposition agree that loans and loan guarantees are often a better form of business support than grants. After all, money for loans can be recycled, but loans are also treated differently by their recipients. When I ran my business a few years ago, I was also a mentor for the Prince's Youth Business Trust, helping young people to start up businesses. I saw then how the provision of loans motivated a start-up firm far more than a grant did. It is not that surprising; one is far more likely to try to maximise the value of funding if one knows that the money has to be paid back, than if one knows that it has been gifted.
	On the whole, therefore, the Opposition support a shift in the balance of financial support. However, it would be helpful, not least in considering the clause, to understand better the current balance. Indeed, of the future £12 billion, and the potential £16 billion that the Government expect the Bill to cover, what proportion do they expect to take the form of a loan over the next five years?
	Further, the Minister on Second Reading failed to inform us of the balance of the schemes and their exact proportion of the total. He mentioned a list of different schemes, and we have debated them on numerous occasions, but he has not told us which are the most important. So, in reply to this debate, will he tell us the five most important schemes by value under the clause, their current value and by how much he expects their value to increase with the new total of £12 billion? That will enable us better to understand the direct impact not only on small, medium and large enterprises, but on different business sectors, which I know he is keen to be seen to support.
	Finally, on clause 1, the Minister mentioned on Second Reading that the Bill's remit includes funds for the post office network, and I am delighted to see the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs in the Chamber. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the Minister responsible for the Bill, tell us how much has already been allocated to the scheme, and how much has been paid out to date?

Lorely Burt: I shall be brief, Sir Alan, as most of what I want to say will come towards the end of our proceedings.
	On Second Reading, the Minister described a wide range of schemes that the legislation will cover, and the Liberal Democrats, too, welcome the emphasis moving from grants to loans and loan guarantees, because it creates a fairer playing field for industry generally and should constitute better value for money for the taxpayer. We welcome also the increase to £12 billion and the potential increase to £16 billion.
	We appreciate that to elicit the loan guarantees, companies must undertake proper due diligence. However, hon. Members in all parts of the House have criticised the fact that the release of funds to companies, especially to small companies that are not seeking to borrow vast sums, is taking an inordinately long time. Will the Minister comment on the steps that are being taken to expedite the due diligence? The Government quite properly require it, but it can slow things up and is putting small businesses, in particular, which need help fast, beyond the reach of the schemes that were designed to help them.

Ian Pearson: Clause 1 is essential to enable the section 8 power of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to continue to be used to give financial assistance to industry for the purposes specified in that Act. It is necessary to continue to strengthen the provision of support for businesses so that they come through stronger from the current global economic downturn. The Bill seeks to amend the cumulative limit on financial assistance that may be provided under section 8 to an initial ceiling of £12 billion, which can be increased by four orders of up to £1 billion each to make an overall limit of £16 billion. We have proposed the £12 billion limit as it restores the ceiling to more or less the same proportion of GDP as was the case when the original Act came into force.
	The business support that we now provide is often in the form of loan guarantees or loans. Those can offer better value for money for the taxpayer in the long term, as loans are repaid over time and only a proportion of guarantees will ultimately need to be met. The hon. Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt) recognised and welcomed that.
	I want to be clear that when we offer loans or loan guarantees, the full amount secured against public funds will count towards the section 8 limit. That is one of the reasons why we need to increase the limit; we debated the issue on Second Reading. We think that £12 billion is a sensible limit at the current time, when it is vital that we maintain sufficient flexibility to respond to the challenges ahead. I want to say something more about flexibility in a moment, because it is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's point about the balance of funds between grant schemes, loans and loan guarantee schemes.
	However, I also want to be clear that the section 8 financial ceiling does not itself authorise any actual expenditure. The Bill retains the accountability to Parliament contained in the existing legislation, and I can confirm that that is through the need for affirmative orders of the Commons, which would replace the existing limits with new, higher ones, reflecting the need for continuing support for industry when necessary.
	We have maintained the £10 million limit for the referral of single expenditure schemes back to the House. As the hon. Gentleman said, an annual report will continue to be published in the Commons Library, setting out how single projects are funded. Combined, the measures provide an appropriate balance between accountability and providing the Government with the legal power to respond to business need.

Mark Prisk: The annual report can be helpful, but as the Minister will understand and Members on both sides of the House will appreciate, when we are considering an order for an increase of the not insubstantial sums identified in clause 1, it will be helpful if we can see the current point when we debate the issue in Committee, rather than just having the annual report. That was what my point was about. Does the Minister not accept that that would improve the quality of scrutiny in the House?

Ian Pearson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I undertake to consider it. If we lay affirmative resolutions, we want to be able to give the reason why they are necessary. Obviously, that would relate to the spend or potential liabilities as a result of Government commitments.
	The hon. Gentleman asked specific questions about the top five schemes. He can see them in the annual report. They include the grant for business investment—previously called "selective financial assistance"—the enterprise finance guarantee scheme and the Post Office reinvention programme; those would account for the bulk of it. The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the Post Office reinvention programme and, as he will be aware, we have made a commitment to the programme of £1.7 billion over the years 2006 to 2011. At this point, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an actual expenditure figure, although I am sure that some of that information can be made available. However, it is clear that there is a programme of spending going on over a five-year period, and that that spending will take place at the appropriate time for the business.

Mark Prisk: The Minister tells us that the three principal schemes include the Post Office reinvention programme. Some Members will be surprised that that comes ahead of, for example, the automotive assistance package, which they might assume would be larger. Is he telling us that that package is not even one of the most important packages in the total number?

Ian Pearson: No, I am not saying that. I want to draw a distinction between schemes that have been in the annual report previously and new schemes that the Government have introduced. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the automotive assistance programme was launched as recently as on 27 January this year. It is a new scheme and, as with all new schemes, it had to go through a process of securing EU state aid approval, which was granted on 27 February. We are in detailed discussions with several automotive companies about the programme. He will be aware of the recent announcements made under the European Investment Bank element of the programme whereby Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan have been offered loans by the EIB. We will want to report to Parliament on the automotive assistance programme and on other programmes in due course, because we believe that there should be full accountability in this area.
	The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which replaced the small firms loan guarantee scheme, is now very much up and running. It is spending significant sums of money, to the tune of about £30 million in loans offered every week. The latest figures that I have seen show that well over 2,000 businesses have made applications to it.
	I think that it is now time for the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Solihull to welcome the new scheme and to recognise that the Government have introduced it in a remarkably short period, and that it is providing valued support to companies and helping to make a difference to those that are receiving it.

Lorely Burt: I am sure that all Members welcome any funding that is finally trickling through to business. The Minister mentioned Jaguar Land Rover. Its assistance under the EIB element has not yet materialised, as it is still waiting for the Government's due diligence to take place. It is obviously important that due diligence takes place, but it appears to be taking a long time. Why is that?

Ian Pearson: Let me clarify the situation. Jaguar Land Rover has successfully applied to the EIB for a loan to undertake a number of green projects, and it will be up to the Government to provide a guarantee for that loan. That is part of the package of support that Jaguar Land Rover will need to secure its long-term future. We are in discussions with the owners of JLR, as well as its management and its banks, about a package to ensure that it can continue to develop its model programme and have a secure future. The hon. Lady knows JLR well because of her constituency connections. She will be aware that as a west midlands MP, I am also fully aware of its strategic importance not only to the west midlands economy but more generally to the automotive industry in the United Kingdom. We need to continue the discussions that we are having. However, I emphasise the fact that JLR is a successful company that, as with all motor companies, is suffering from the severe economic downturn, which has affected its business just as other businesses in the automotive industry have been affected. However, it was making good profits in the period January to June 2008, and there is absolutely no reason why it cannot do so in future. We need to continue to consider what is the appropriate role for Government in providing support to JLR, and we are doing that in the discussions that we are taking forward with it at the moment.
	The other point that I want to make about clause 1 is related to the request from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford that we seek to break down how much has been provided in grants and how much will potentially be provided in loans and loan guarantees. I do not have those figures to hand, but clearly expenditure, whether in the form of grants, loans or loan guarantees, all contributes to the need for an authority to spend. We are seeking through the Bill an increase in the limits. However, I will reflect on whether we can provide more and better information, not just in the form of an annual report but on a slightly more regular basis. It would not be appropriate to have a running commentary every week or month, but I recognise that it is not unreasonable to want some more detail about spending progress.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to the Minister, not least for being generous in giving way. I return to my original point. He highlighted the fact that the annual report, for example, showed a certain balance of schemes, and now events have changed. He is right, and we understand that that will continue to be the case. It seems to me that a logical pattern would be that when the Government need to come forward with a request for an additional increase over and above the existing limit, that is the obvious moment at which we in the House would benefit from being able to see the current snapshot of the balance.
	I am slightly disappointed that the Minister does not have the figures on the balance between loans and grants, but I wonder whether he will ensure that at least some information can be provided to Members. We will not have the chance to consider this further, as this is the last day on which we will have the opportunity to discuss the Bill. Given the fact that Ministers cited the balance between grants and loans as the principal reason for change, it would be helpful if we could at least have the evidence of what the current balance is and what the Government's expectation of change is. Does the Minister accept that, and will he undertake to provide it?

Ian Pearson: I certainly accept that the reason why we need to increase the limits is that a lot of the programmes that we have looked to introduce have been guarantee schemes. Whether the headline guarantee figure is £1.3 billion for the enterprise finance guarantee or £2.3 billion for the automotive assistance programme, it all contributes to the need for the authority to incur expenditure. In that sense, I have given the hon. Gentleman some of the key figures. I shall happily write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library, explaining a further detailed breakdown of the schemes as far as I can. Obviously some of that will depend on future draw-down of loan guarantees, so inevitably figures cannot be precise, but we can certainly provide more information. I am happy to undertake that that will be done.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Assistance in connection with exports of goods or services

Lorely Burt: I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, line 23, at end add—
	'(3) Arrangements falling within subsection (2) may be made only if the Secretary of State is properly satisfied that an adequate case impact assessment has been carried out in accordance with the principles established for the Export Credits Guarantee Department or such other body performing comparable functions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.'.
	First, I extend my thanks to the Jubilee Debt Campaign, Transparency International and the WWF for the help and advice that they have extended. Clause 2 will amend the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991, which governs the Export Credits Guarantee Department's remit, so that the ECGD can provide financial backing for exports that are already under way. My concern is that that will allow for the possibility that the ECGD's business principles governing environmental standards, sustainable development impacts and corruption will be circumvented.
	It is important that the Government do what they can to support British business in a time of recession. However, there is widespread agreement that such support needs to be sustainable and as green as possible, and that it does not do more harm than good. The worry is that the ECGD could, if it supports exports that have already been supplied without the usual due diligence, inadvertently support projects that have a negative impact on developing countries and add to their unjust and unpayable debt burdens. Civil society groups already have serious concerns about the role of the ECGD in supporting investments that have been linked to human rights violations, corruption, environmental damage and increased debt in poor countries. There needs to be an improvement in the ECGD's involvement rather than a reduction of the existing standards.
	Transparency International UK says that there is no evidence that the Government have consulted interested civil society organisations or the Export Guarantees Advisory Council. Given the speed with which the amendment to the 1991 Act has been drafted and the lack of consultation, the consequences are potentially serious and need to be tackled. We are concerned that there is no safeguard for applying the business principles and anti-bribery provisions. To satisfy the ECGD's business partners' need for certainty and ensure speed of decision making, the business principles and due diligence procedures may be watered down. Many sectors with which the ECGD has the greatest involvement are historical hotbeds of corruption.
	The ECGD currently carries out a case impact analysis to ensure that the principles will not be breached. We simply ask that the Secretary of State certificate that in some way. The ECGD, not the supplier, should undertake the due diligence. That is basically an on-the-record assurance that the case impact analysis has been done.
	I am not trying to delay matters, but we must make provisions to ensure that, when the Government exercise discretion and award guarantees when the export process has already begun, at least the same principles are used to approve guarantees as those that apply when companies wait for approval before going ahead.

Elliot Morley: I want to make several points about clause 2, which are very much in line with the comments of the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt).
	I greatly welcome the general powers in the Bill, especially in clause 1, to support industry. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I represent a steel constituency, and support for manufacturing, when justified, is important, especially in the current circumstances. I appreciate that he, too, represents a manufacturing area. I strongly welcome the powers to provide support for manufacturing.
	The hon. Lady made some important points about clause 2. My hon. Friend knows that there have been several meetings about the powers that the ECGD should have to ensure that supported projects fulfil high standards of sustainable development, and have good environmental and social standards. He also knows that new guidelines have been drawn up for the ECGD. A debate is continuing with organisations such as WWF about whether the guidelines are adequate and meet the standards.
	There is a worry that because of the wording of clause 2 some existing arrangements do not meet the ECGD's guidelines on sustainability and environmental standards. I would certainly welcome some assurances on that, because the issue might be one that my hon. Friend the Minister's Department could address by ensuring that even if there is some element of retrospection, as provided for in clause 2, an assessment could still be made of any potential scheme. That is important to the non-governmental organisation community, as well as many hon. Members in all parts of the House, including me, and I would welcome some assurances on it.
	I would also appreciate perhaps just a comment about the wording of clause 2(1), which gives the Secretary of State clear powers to
	"make arrangements under this section in connection with supplies by persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom of goods or services to persons carrying on business outside the United Kingdom."
	That seems quite a broad definition, so I wonder whether my hon. Friend could clarify whether it gives the Department some flexibility in the potential standards that it might apply in relation to any loan guarantee.

Mark Prisk: I commend the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) for tabling amendment 1, not least because I hope that it will enable the Minister to put on record the Government's full position.
	At the heart of clause 2 is the Minister's stated wish to update the facilitating role of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, notably, as we have heard from hon. Members on both sides, with more challenging export and overseas projects. The Government are right to say that the way in which high-value capital goods are transacted today has changed considerably since the original Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 was passed. Conversely, the scope for social, ethical and environmental due diligence by the Government has, for all the best reasons, increased over that period quite significantly. The net result can be, although not in all cases, to slow the ability of the ECGD to keep up with modern business timetables. There is therefore a case for trying to enable British exporters to trade, while not reducing our national approach towards ethical and environmental standards.
	That is why clause 2 has the support of the CBI and, quite rightly, the British Exporters Association. It is also why we support the Government's aims in making such a change. After all, it is vital, as the right hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) rightly pointed out, that we ensure that businesses can compete in a modern economy, now more than ever. However, there are reasonable questions about the effect of the clause, especially in the minority of cases where projects may have an important ethical or environmental consideration. As the hon. Member for Solihull rightly pointed out, the World Wildlife Fund has rightly set out questions about how projects might be underwritten retrospectively and about how the Government will ensure that they have not breached human rights or created unacceptable environmental damage. Other people are also concerned about the potential problem of bribery in those areas where corruption is rife.
	Large-scale infrastructure projects would be especially challenging to police or to audit retrospectively. Equally, if a substantial contract—perhaps for a new dam or a bridge—is commenced, what is the likelihood of the ECGD subsequently withholding support, given the likely economic, employment or political difficulties in such a case? Those are reasonable questions.
	Furthermore, as I understand it, the ECGD currently conforms to the standards set by the World Bank. I have tried to consider those and, as I see it, the standards clearly require assessments to be completed before financing is agreed. If that is true, does clause 2 not breach World Bank standards? It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm or clarify that.
	For both those reasons we support amendment 1, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull. I hope that, in his response, the Minister will clearly set out the Government's policy and assure us that their standards will not be diluted as a result of clause 2.

Ian Pearson: I can indeed assure the Committee that there is nothing in clause 2 that dilutes the high environmental standards or the policies against bribery and corruption that are adopted by the Government. Let me respond to the debate by saying some words about the reason for clause 2. I apologise if I go slightly broader than amendment 1, but other hon. Members have done so, and it seems appropriate for me to do so, too.
	The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) rightly raised the issue of the problem of using the word "facilitating" when it comes to the supplies of goods or services. That has created difficulties for British exporters, because the Export Credits Guarantee Department cannot facilitate exports if they have already been supplied. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, and as I did on Second Reading, there are two main reasons why the problems occurred and why this amendment to the ECGD's current powers was proposed.
	The first reason is the way in which the high-value capital goods market now works, which often means that requests for ECGD support are made later in the process of export. Buyers or overseas project sponsors rather than the exporters often approach the ECGD for support and buyers seek support only after the exports have been procured and some of the relevant goods or services have been supplied. In many cases with these products, a process of supply takes place.
	Secondly, the ECGD's decision-making processes have evolved in recent years to implement wider Government policy on corruption and on environmental and social impacts. I think that all Members will very much welcome that fact. These are directed by the ECGD's business principles and involve rigorous due diligence. Of course, that can take time and can delay the ECGD's ability to make a decision until the supply has been completed. The amendment would allow the ECGD to support exports that have already been made by the time the ECGD has completed its due diligence, but I want to assure this Committee of the whole House that clause 2 does not in any way detract from the rigorous standards that we want to apply to any export that the ECGD is considering exporting.
	Amendment 1 concerns the application of the ECGD's environmental policies, I re-emphasise the fact that the clause does not alter the ECGD's business principles or the triggers for their application to cases. If there were to be a change to the ECGD's practices in that regard, ECGD's business principles themselves state that the ECGD will consult.
	I also report to the Committee that, as my noble Friend Lord Mandelson announced yesterday in the White Paper "New Industry, New Jobs", the ECGD will in the weeks ahead consult on ways of further supporting levels of credit for UK exporters. The Government will ensure that the support offered by the ECGD plays a significant role in supporting UK exporters when demand picks up. It is right to consider at this time a wider role for the ECGD in providing support, but we will consult on that.
	I invite the Committee to reject the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), for three reasons. I do not believe that it is necessary, appropriate or workable, so let me try to explain why. The amendment is based on the assumption that clause 2 will somehow weaken the ECGD's application of its business principles. As I have been at pains to make out, that is not the case. The assumption is mistaken. Clause 2 allows the ECGD to provide support for British supplies that have been made by the time assessments have been completed. It makes no change whatever to the business principles. The only difference is that the circumstances in which the ECGD may consider giving support have been extended to include supplies already being made. It is thus the Government's strongly held view that the amendment is simply unnecessary.
	I believe that the amendment is also loosely drafted. It is not clear whether the requirement to carry out a case impact assessment is intended to apply to all exports supported by the ECGD or just to a sub-set of them, such as exports completed before it makes the decision to provide support or exports completed before the Bill comes into force and before the ECGD makes the decision to provide support. One interpretation of the amendment might be that a case impact assessment is required only in relation to exports completed prior to the Bill's coming into force and/or to exports completed prior to the ECGD making a decision to provide support. It seems odd to require a case impact assessment for a sub-set of the ECGD's business only.
	The amendment could also be interpreted more widely to apply to all exports supported by the ECGD. A statutory obligation would be imposed on the ECGD to conduct a case impact assessment before entering into any arrangements in connection with exports under section 1 of the ECGD's governing Act. That would represent a change in the ECGD's policy in a way that is not within the scope of the Bill, and it would not be appropriate to change the ECGD's environmental policy by statute.
	I assume—although it is not made clear—that the amendment is intended to enshrine in statute the ECGD's case impact assessment as it exists today, and to give statutory force to the assessment. I believe that that would be largely unworkable. The ECGD's application of its business principles, including those that govern when a case impact assessment must be carried out, is a matter of publicly stated policy.
	Maintaining the business principles as a policy allows them to be adapted to take account of changes in international standards: for example, to reflect new recommendations and common approaches issued by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on bribery and corruption, sustainable development or the environment. If the business principles or any aspect of them were enshrined in statute, it would be much more difficult for the ECGD to comply with its international undertakings, as primary legislation would be required on each occasion to allow it to adapt the relevant business principles to reflect changes in international agreements.
	Similarly, primary legislation would be required for any increase in the rigour of the business principles, and I do not think that some of the groups mentioned by the hon. Lady would want that to happen. We want the ECGD to maintain high standards, but I do not think that enshrining the business principles in statute and having to pass primary legislation every time we wanted to change them represents a good use of parliamentary time. Given that—as Members will know—the OECD is currently discussing changes in some of these areas, I do not think that that would be workable in practice.
	My main point, however, it that the amendment is unnecessary. I can give the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks: no watering down is taking place. The ECGD's business principles will continue to apply—on bribery and corruption, sustainable development and the environment—and the ECGD will continue to apply them as rigorously as it does today. I hope that, given those assurances, she will seek leave to withdraw her amendment.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful to the Minister for his thorough explanation, and for all his technical explanations of why the amendment is not entirely appropriate. I think that it has achieved what it set out to achieve: to have placed on the record assurances from the Government that there will be no watering down and no circumvention of the business principles. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	 Clause 2  ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 Clause  3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Bill reported, without amendment.
	 Third Reading

Ian Pearson: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This is a small Bill with just three clauses, but as the House agreed when we considered it at an earlier stage, it is vital that we continue to help businesses as much as we can in these exceptional economic times. The Bill proposes two amendments to the Industrial Development and the Export and Investment Guarantees Acts.
	The first clause is essential to enable the section 8 power of the Industrial Development Act 1982 to continue to be used to give financial assistance to industry for the purposes specified in that Act. That is necessary to continue to strengthen the provision of support for businesses so that they can come through the global economic downturn stronger. As has previously been explained, the Bill seeks to amend the cumulative limit on financial assistance that may be provided under section 8 to an initial ceiling of £12 billion increasable by four orders of £1 billion each to an overall limit of £16 billion. We have previously discussed this measure, and I think there is widespread support for it.
	The new forms of support that the Government have been seeking to provide for industry have principally been loan guarantees or loans, and I think there has been acceptance on both sides of the House that that is an appropriate policy intervention. That is why we propose today to increase the limits. Let me offer the example of the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, which has been providing real help to viable businesses.
	Since the launch of the scheme in January, almost £270 million-worth of eligible applications have been granted or processed or assessed from more than 2,300 firms. On 31 March, we announced the solutions for business portfolio, which makes it simpler for businesses to access the support they need. For the first time, all Government help for business, including section 8 support schemes, now share an easy, identifiable banner and can be accessed through Business Link. That has been welcomed by a wide range of business organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce and the CBI, but without the introduction of the new limits, the legislative basis for those proposals under section 8 would be exceeded on reaching the limit of £6.1 billion allowed by the Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Act 2003. We therefore need the new powers to ensure that viable businesses continue to receive the support they need.
	Clause 2 has also been welcomed by the CBI, and I hope that environmental groups and groups that are active in the field of ensuring that the UK has high standards in combating bribery and corruption understand the points I was making in response to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) about the Government intending to continue to maintain high standards and their business principles when looking at large capital goods exports. The Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 governs the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department, a Government Department that reports to the Secretary of State. As I have said, we have had difficulties with the facilitating of supplies and clause 2 seeks to address that. The high-value capital goods market works very differently now from the way in which it did a number of years ago, and the measure essentially clarifies and legitimises ECGD support, rather than in anyway diluting the standards that would apply when assessing individual applications for high-value capital goods; I am happy to confirm that.
	If that amendment were not made, British exporters would continue to risk discrimination from overseas project sponsors, because ECGD would not be able to give the type of support that sponsors want. Other export credit agencies in competitor nations are not restricted in the same way in supporting exports that have already taken place, and without this change ECGD support would be reduced as a result of the increasing number of applications that are made to it at too late a stage in the project for its support to be given. That, of course, would be the position in any circumstances, but in the current economic circumstances support for British exports is particularly important. Over recent months, interest in ECDG support and applications for its assistance have, unsurprisingly, increased significantly. The export industry has made it clear that it feels that the problems that we are addressing through clause 2 are serious for it, which is why it has welcomed the amendment.
	As I have made clear, the special interest groups that are concerned about this amendment can be reassured by the fact that the criteria applied to projects where the export has been completed will not be altered or made less stringent. The business principles, whether they relate to the environment or to bribery and corruption, are not weakened as a result of the amendment—indeed, it meets a recommendation of the Environmental Audit Committee that would, in the EAC's view, strengthen the ECDG's environmental scrutiny. A report on the ECDG and sustainable development that the Committee published last year recommended the following:
	"No offer of support should be made, whether actual or provisional, until ECDG's Business Principles Unit has completed its assessment"
	of the project for which the exports are destined. Although I do not agree that the ECDG's environmental scrutiny might be compromised by provisional offers of support, the Bill allows the ECGD to implement the EAC's recommendation. Its environmental scrutiny can now be completed, and a final offer of support made thereafter, without regard to the timing of the delivery of the export.
	We face a unique set of economic challenges. I am pleased that hon. Members from all parts of the House have recognised the need for these additional powers and have been supportive of the main aims of the Bill, and I am grateful for the constructive approach that Opposition Members have taken. This Bill may not have had a lengthy passage—it has indeed been a short one—but there has been a proper opportunity for scrutiny on Second Reading and in Committee. These important measures will help to deliver the real assistance and support that business needs at these difficult times, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mark Prisk: I thank the Minister for the courteous way in which he deals with my many and often detailed questions. I hope that they keep him and his office busy, but my intention is to ensure that the House's scrutiny is thorough. He is always courteous in how he handles it, despite being on a sticky wicket, and he defends his position with patience and a degree of calmness that I suspect others would not achieve; I appreciate that, as I am sure the House does. May I also take the opportunity at the beginning of Third Reading to thank the Clerks for their support, because the legislation of this House makes progress only with the aid of their efficiency and effectiveness? We rarely commend and thank them, but we should do so more often; I just wanted to put that on the record.
	The Minister has alluded to the fact that the passage of this Bill has been brief, and that brevity belies the huge sums attached to it. After all, it is not every day that three clauses equate to £16 billion. Conservative Members support raising the upper limits, and we are satisfied that the House will have the appropriate opportunity to scrutinise the process. We also recognise the need to update the law on exports and for Government to help British business to remain competitive. We, along with other Members, have raised our concerns in respect of ensuring that ethical and environmental standards are maintained, and I accept the assurances that the Minister has given.
	Our concern lies not so much with the legislation or the intentions that it will enact, but with the wide gap between Ministers' rhetoric and the speed and effectiveness of their actions. As with the Chancellor's Budget tomorrow, it will not be the words expressed from the Dispatch Box that will lead this country out of recession but how effective Ministers are in delivering real help. On that, this Government's record has been at best slow, at worst inadequate and all too often incompetent. For the sake of hundreds of firms and thousands of workers, we need change and we need it now.

Lorely Burt: As the Minister said in his opening remarks, this is a small Bill of huge importance to industry and the future prosperity of this country. It is certainly big on cost, with financial assistance of £6 billion which could be increased to a total of £16 billion. It is also big on help for our exporters. In 2007-08, £1.8 billion in export loans was guaranteed. It is also big in its implications for Britain's reputation overseas on the environment, human rights and sustainable development, as well as potential corruption and how we deal with it. So it is a big Bill, although it has not received great scrutiny.
	We support the first clause, and we agree on the emphasis on a shift from grants to loans and to loan guarantees. Unlike the Conservatives, we believe that in times of great economic difficulty we should do all that we can to help companies, but it has to be real help in real time. Like the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), I feel that the gap between Government announcements and the provision of real money is still too great. Earlier, I asked the Minister whether he could comment on why due diligence was taking such a long time, and whether other issues were hampering the provision of financial help to companies through the Government schemes that have already been announced.
	The Minister was good enough to mention Jaguar Land Rover and the £350 million European Investment Bank funding under the clean transport facility loan. That brings me on to green issues and the assistance provided by Government loans and guarantees. JLR is the leading automobile research and development company in Britain, so any help is well merited. We welcome the announcement of the £5,000 to be given towards the purchase of electric cars from 2011, but why were electric vans not included? I have in mind LDV, which has electric vans ready to roll off the production line. If we are talking about reducing carbon emissions, it would be hugely beneficial to substitute many of the vans on the roads today with electric vehicles.
	On Second Reading, the Minister did not answer three of my questions, so I shall give him the opportunity to respond to them now. I asked him about help for lease financing companies, which have not been included in the banking industry support schemes although those companies afford tremendous help to small businesses that are arguably the most vulnerable in these difficult economic times. On the issue of the small business automatic rate relief, I suspect that the Minister will tell me off and suggest that I wait until tomorrow. I hope that we will hear some good words from the Chancellor on that.
	I also floated a minimal cost idea, which involved a register of administrations and the publication of whether a proposed customer has a history of liquidating companies. It would be relatively easy to see what sort of relative risk would be afforded if one went into business to supply a company whose directors had a history of liquidating companies.
	We support the scheme in clause 2 in principle, with the provisos that the Minister has already given to us in amendment 1. However, it is worth looking at who benefits. I looked up the Export Credits Guarantee Department's annual review and resources account for 2007-08. What did I find? Of the total business support of £1.8 billion, more than £500 million went to Airbus, whereas £750 million went to BAE Systems and was spent on defence—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Lady some leniency, but on Third Reading we are meant to be discussing the content of the Bill, rather than posing questions as the hon. Lady is doing.

Lorely Burt: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely trying to talk about what the Bill will achieve in terms of supply and about where guarantees paid for out of taxpayers' money are being directed. We have a worry—there was a conversation on this subject earlier in the debate—about the proportion of supply that went to smaller companies and to larger companies. My point was that the huge companies seem to be swallowing the guarantees while a relatively small amount of money goes to smaller exporters.
	In conclusion, although we welcome the Bill overall, we have some reservations. We would be grateful if the Minister considered conducting a review after a year or so to allow the House to scrutinise whether the Bill is working as well as we all hope that it will.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Health Care and Associated Professions

That the draft Health Care and Associated Professions (Miscellaneous Amendments and Practitioner Psychologists) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 5 March, be approved . —(Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

That the draft Categories of Gaming Machine (Amendment) Regulations 2009, which were laid before this House on 10 March, be approved. —(Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

European Security and Defence Policy

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16686/08, French Presidency Report on European Security and Defence Policy, and No. 17104/08, Report on the Implementation of the European Security Strategy-Providing Security in a Changing World; welcomes the French Presidency's report and the High Commissioner's review; and supports the Government's position that UK and European security are enhanced by action co-ordinated at an EU level. —(Mr. Blizzard.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Sitting suspended (Standing Order No. 20).

Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords]

Debate resumed.
	 Question (15 January) again proposed,
	That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords], which were originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).

Tony Lloyd: This is rather like old times, I suppose, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The business before the House tonight consists of two revival motions, and I know that you would take a dim view were I to stray beyond the arguments in favour of or, indeed, against revival. The debate is clearly narrow, and I hope that, on that basis, it can be short and succinct.
	It is worth reminding the House that the revival of this type of private Bill has been common practice for a long time, and I am told that opposition to revival motions is relatively unusual in the annals of the House. In that context, and given that the Bills that received a Second Reading on 29 October 2008 passed that stage so recently, and that the other Bills that we will discuss did not have the chance of being given a Second Reading even though there was lengthy debate, I want to establish that, after less than six months, it would be almost absurd for the House to refuse the revival motion.
	In that spirit, I hope that I can say confidently to the Chamber that the revival ought to go ahead. It is up to those who oppose it to put, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, their narrow and brief case as to why it should not.

Christopher Chope: Surely the hon. Gentleman needs to address the fact that, since the Bills came before the House, the Durham university report has been published. I am sure he will accept that it throws considerable doubt on many assertions in the promoters' statements.

Tony Lloyd: For the record, the Durham university study does not show that. For example, it said that, even to a sceptical inquirer, it was clear that there were circumstances in which such legislation would be important to certain local areas. I speak from the point of view of Manchester, but I am sure that my colleagues from Leeds and Nottingham, who are alongside me, and those from Canterbury, Reading and Bournemouth, who are also present, share the same sentiments in respect of their own localities. That is an important point. In any case, the hon. Gentleman's argument about detail and the study's merits, while fascinating and worthy of debate, would be better conducted when those Bills that have received a Second Reading move into Committee. Indeed, with your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if we can secure the revival motion for those Bills that have not yet had a Second Reading, we might debate the merits of the Durham study during their Second Readings, too.
	In that spirit, I hope the whole House will accept that a revival is desirable. It is only a matter of months since the Bills were debated, and it was clear at the time that, barring a small fringe, a majority of the House massively supported them. It would be contemptuous of the House not to accept the spirit and, indeed, the letter of the revival. In that context, I support the first and, by reference, second motions, on private business which appear on the Order Paper tonight.

Christopher Chope: I welcome this debate because it should give the promoters of these Bills the opportunity to show cause as to why they should have leave to proceed with them in the current Session. The provisions of Standing Order No. 188B, which relates to the revival of Bills, make it clear that there is no right to have a Bill revived and that it is a matter of discretion for the House. It is therefore relevant to look at the history of the Manchester City Council Bill and the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill, which goes back to 22 January 2007, when they were originally introduced in the other place.
	Since then, much has happened that renders the Bills, particularly in so far as they relate to pedlars, no longer appropriate. I have particular reason to be concerned about clause 5 of each Bill. A Select Committee in the other place scrutinised the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill in detail in 2007. One of its conclusions was that it had
	"strong reservations about the use of piecemeal private legislation to remedy perceived problems in national legislation."
	The justification given by the promoters for continuing to proceed with the Bills was that nothing was happening through national legislation and that therefore local solutions were needed.
	However, the caravan has moved on. As a result of pressure from both sides of the House, the Government agreed last summer to commission research from Durham university on the application and perception of local authority controls and pedlar legislation. I opposed the Second Readings of these two Bills—because, among other reasons, I regarded them as premature. I argued that we should await the publication of the Durham university report. For the same reason, I objected to the Bills' being carried over into this Session. The Government provided no time to debate those carry-over motions before Prorogation last November. That, in turn, resulted in the promoters seeking the indulgence of the House to allow them to revive the Bills in this Session.
	I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd): the two Bills that we are considering both received a Second Reading in the House. However, they received it before the Durham university report had been published. I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had the chance to look at the report, but I should say that it extends to 97 pages and, in my submission, represents an important and timely contribution to the debate on these Bills.
	The report was published by the Government earlier this year and because of its findings I had expected the hon. Member for Manchester, Central— [Interruption.] He is not paying attention to the debate at the moment. I had expected the hon. Gentleman to have a much more contrite mindset about the alleged justification for including clause 5 in his Bill. I shall expand on this in connection with the other Bills, but I should tell him that I have had discussions with two of the local authorities concerned in this private legislation—those discussions continued today—and I have to report their willingness to be much more receptive to the clear evidence of the Durham university study. It is a matter of regret to me that in his short introduction to tonight's proceedings, he did not refer to that important report. Among other things, the report draws attention to the fact that there have been only five convictions in the whole of Manchester in the period 2002-06—hardly indicative, one might think, of a really serious issue that needs to be addressed by this House, and has so far been addressed at considerable length.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case on these matters. Does he agree that it is also important to reflect on what implications there would be for neighbouring local authority areas if the regulations were introduced?

Christopher Chope: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too distracted by his hon. Friend, because he understands, I am sure, the careful distinction that we have to make in this debate about what are strictly matters to do with the revival motion rather than with the actual merits of the Bill, where the House has already made a decision. It is a question of whether there would be an opportunity for further consideration of these matters were the revival motion to be approved by the House.

Christopher Chope: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance.

Greg Knight: While of course I accept that what has been said from the Chair is correct—and is, indeed, always correct—is it not the case that when deciding whether one should give consent to carry over a Bill, the question whether there is still a need for the provision must be relevant to making that decision?

Christopher Chope: That is absolutely fundamental. What has happened in this case is a change of circumstances. Where there is fresh evidence, it behoves Members of this House to consider the new situation. The Durham university report makes it clear that if a local authority wishes to use private legislation to change the law in this respect, it needs to have strong evidence—the very last statement made in the report; I do not quote it exactly but summarise, I think fairly. If that is so, it is all the more incumbent on the promoters of the Bill to address the issues contained in that report, particularly the finding, which we were never able to get out of them in the debate in June last year, that in the period 2002-06 there were only five guilty verdicts in Greater Manchester and only three in Dorset—of course, those are the two areas affected by the Bills that we are discussing. The most fair-minded person might say, "If, in that period, only five incidents have resulted in convictions in one area and three in the other, does that really merit the introduction of a complete change in the law with new private legislation?" This is new evidence before the House that was not available to us when we considered the matter previously, and that needs to be taken into account.

Peter Bone: This debate is about the revival of the Bill. Could not the Government have found time for a carry-over motion in the previous Session? The only argument from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) as to why this revival should take place was that revivals usually take place, which does not seem a very powerful case.

Christopher Chope: I am not sure that revivals normally take place; it is a question of judgment. I think that there is a precedent, which has been cited, to the effect that if a Bill has not received its Second Reading during the whole of one of our parliamentary Sessions, it would prima facie not be right for that Bill to be the subject of a carry-over motion or a revival motion. I accept that that constraint does not apply to these two Bills, although it may have some relevance to the subsequent debate.
	It is quite clear from examining the private business Standing Orders that this is a matter of discretion for the House. You may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I objected to the carry-over motion that was put forward at the end of the last Session in respect of the Northern Bank Bill. I objected to the Bill and made it clear to its promoters that it was not going to be a straightforward tick-in-the-box procedure, and they decided to withdraw it. They recognised that it had not made any progress during the Session, and implicitly recognised that they needed to go back to the drawing board to see whether the Bill was still relevant.

Lorely Burt: Members on both sides of the House have now said that this is a matter for the discretion of the House. Perhaps I am not as well versed as the hon. Gentleman in the wonderful and mysterious ways in which the House works, but if it is a matter for the discretion of the House, why do we not divide and let Members use their discretion to decide whether the Bills go forward?

Christopher Chope: I do not think that anybody is ruling out the possibility that there could be a vote on this issue, and then we could find out the view of the House. However, it is a pretty novel proposition that we should not have any debate in this House about the motions that are before us. I happen to think that it is a pity that there was so little debate on the previous business this afternoon that the sitting had to be suspended for more than two hours, at a time when the way in which we conduct ourselves is very much in the public eye, but that is another issue and I will not go down that route.
	One of the major findings of the Durham university report was:
	"The scale of pedlary in Great Britain is relatively modest, with an estimated 3,000-4,500 pedlars being granted certificates to trade by police forces. There is little evidence that certificated pedlars present problems in city centres, nor are they generally in direct competition with shops or street traders. Indeed, consumers valued their presence in town centres and regarded buying from pedlars as a positive experience."
	That is a direct quotation. In trying to find out the attitude of ordinary members of the public towards pedlars, the report's producers commissioned research in two city centres. One was Edinburgh and the other was actually Manchester. There is a detailed set of findings in the Durham university report on the views of the public in Manchester, which are that there is no great problem with pedlars. The public think that pedlars add to the character of the neighbourhood and they enjoy using their services. Of course, we have made the point before that it is not compulsory to use their services, but the public enjoy their availability and recognise that they make a major contribution to Manchester's entrepreneurial flair, which has national renown.
	The evidence in the Government's report is completely at odds with many of the assertions that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central made when he introduced the Bills on Second Reading. In my submission, the fact that the promoters' assertions have been found wanting by the independent report is relevant in deciding tonight whether the Bills should be allowed to be revived in this Session, notwithstanding the fact that we are already halfway through it.
	A further finding of the Durham report, which echoes the speeches that several of us made during the Second Reading debates, is that the problem is illegal street trading rather than the activities of genuine pedlars. That point was made a lot, but the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), whom I am delighted to see in his place, and others disputed it hotly. However, we now have objective evidence from the Durham university study that shows that the evidence that local authorities submitted conflated illegal street trading with the activities of genuine pedlars. According to the report, the promoters of the Bills and their supporters showed confusion about the different identities of pedlars, illegal traders and rogues, just as the Durham university researchers found that local authorities generally had done.

Julian Brazier: What is the difference between an illegal street trader with a pedlar's licence and a pedlar who trades illegally? The problem is pedlars trading illegally on the streets of Canterbury—it may not be a problem nationally. What distinction is my hon. Friend trying to draw? He mentioned "promoters of the Bills", presumably referring to me. Will he explain the distinction?

Christopher Chope: I referred to the Bills' promoters, but obviously my hon. Friend is promoting the Bill about Canterbury—a city council—which is the subject of the second debate tonight. Mr. Deputy Speaker has already made it clear that he does not believe that it is appropriate to go into the merits of the Bills. However, to give my hon. Friend a summary response, I commend the Durham university report to him. I do not know whether he has read it, but it is available on the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website. I am delighted that my diligent hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has not only read and digested it, but has a copy of it in the Chamber. If my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) reads it in full, he will realise that there is a clear answer to the problem that he has raised, and that the findings are not in accord with the prejudices that he brings to the debate, doubtless based on his experiences in Canterbury. However, in the light of the objective report, I do not believe that those experiences warrant the proposed legislation.

Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he now answer my question?

Christopher Chope: I will not answer my hon. Friend's question directly, but simply refer him to the report because I do not want to consider the merits of the Bills. I want to consider carry-over, which is the subject of the motion. I appreciate that my hon. Friend may mischievously be trying to tempt me into a conflict with the Chair about the procedures, but I shall not be drawn into that. The merits of the Bills have been tackled: I commend the Durham university report to my hon. Friend.
	However, I ask my hon. Friend and the other promoters what their response has been to the findings, which came as a relief to many pedlars, but were a surprise to several people who had been seduced into believing that there was a problem that primary legislation needed to address.

Philip Davies: I admit that I have not been on the Department's website, so will my hon. Friend tell us whether, given that the Government commissioned the report, they have produced a response to it?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend raises a point that I was going to come to in a minute. In response to a written question from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) in March, the Minister said:
	"The Government will publish a consultation document this summer. Taking into account the findings of the report, we will be seeking views on possible changes to street trading and pedlar legislation, and on draft guidance on the current regime."
	That answer was given in response to a question about when the Minister would
	"start his consultation on the findings of the Street Trading and Pedlary in Great Britain report".—[ Official Report, 30 March 2009; Vol. 490, c. 913W.]

Philip Davies: That is a very helpful reply. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that that response from the Government should simply conclude the matter for now and that we should all wait until that review takes place? It seems pointless to take any action now, when that review will take place in the summer.

Christopher Chope: As so often in the House, my hon. Friend makes a compelling statement of what most people would regard as common sense. The issue has national implications, not least because pedlars' certificates have a national ambit when they are issued. The issue has been the subject of detailed research and the Government are now saying that they are going out to consultation. At best, that may result in some guidance, which is very much needed—people on all sides of the argument would recognise that—and it could result in some legislation.
	Why do the promoters not seem to want to go down that path of common sense? As I have said to the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, his Bill—the Manchester City Council Bill—may well continue in Committee in this Session, but he will have to take account of the fact that it cannot get on to the statute book until after Report. I anticipate that when my colleagues and I table amendments on Report that reflect the findings of the Durham university report, it will not be just us arguing for them, but the Minister himself—if he is still in the Government then—because those amendments would be a reflection of common sense and the findings of the Durham university study.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to anticipate the selection that would take place in those circumstances.

Christopher Chope: Certainly not. Nor do I want to anticipate my drafting of any possible amendments.

Greg Knight: My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech, but is not the flaw in the argument that he is developing that if the promoters say, "Well, the Government are going to consult, so we don't need to carry over," they will, in effect, have to go back to square one? If they decide that they want legislation that goes beyond what the Government eventually propose, they will have to start all over again. Would not the promoters' argument therefore be that they want the carry-over motions in order to keep their options open?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For the guidance of the House, it is fairly plain that we have a motion before us for carry-over. It is the merits of that motion that the House is now obliged to consider, rather than the motivation that might lie behind it. The motion is here and it is being debated. I suggest that that is what we strictly do.

Christopher Chope: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, the motion is for a revival rather than for carry-over, because the carry-over motion was objected to before Prorogation.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. He should forgive me if I do not understand the procedure—I am a new boy here—but if national legislation is anticipated for the future, why on earth are we considering reviving private legislation that might contradict what the House decides that national legislation should be?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. One of the questions that we must consider in deciding whether we wish to revive the Bills this evening is whether they have been so discredited as a result of the latest findings and so upstaged by the Government's announcements to which I have referred that they are now almost redundant and will not make any progress.
	I have now come across page 70 of the Durham university report, which states:
	"The evidence for private acts should however be convincing, both in terms of the evidence of a problem, as well as the solutions having the desired effects. Local authorities hoping to adopt legislation...should provide a strong case to justify their adoption."
	That is where the promoters of these two Bills have fallen down: perhaps before the publication of the Durham university report, we would have thought that there was not such a stringent test; now that the report has come out, I think most fair-minded people would say that the test is reasonable. We obviously have to take into account the use of the House's time, the burden placed on those participating in Committee and whether that Committee stage will be worth-while, having regard to the constraints to which I have already drawn attention and the possibility that when the matter gets to Report, the Government might seek major amendments to the Bills—with or without the support of Opposition Members and others who are concerned about ensuring the future of pedlary in this country. I have been unable to tease out from the promoters of the Bills their response to the Durham university report. In my submission, it is not an academic matter; it goes to the heart of whether or not these Bills should be revived.
	I also want to draw attention to the fact that if the promoters were, in the light of the Durham university report, prepared to withdraw clause 5 from each Bill, thereby disapplying the application of the Bills to pedlars, I am sure that those who have been concerned about these Bills would be happy to respond positively. To go back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), it would mean that these Bills could go through very quickly because there would effectively be no opposition to them. What could be more reasonable and sensible than that? To adopt what is tantamount to a heads-in-the-sand approach should give us all great cause for concern, not least because such stubbornness will inevitably result in an elongation of proceedings.
	We have established that there is a difference of view between the different promoters of these different Bills; up to now they have been treated as if they were a block of Bills, but we have now found that two councils are willing to admit to substantial amendments in respect of clause 5, but the other four councils are not willing to do that. That is a new development since the last debate on these matters and is a relevant factor in considering whether it is appropriate to allow these Bills to be carried over.

Peter Bone: Is my hon. Friend able briefly to say which two councils have compromised and which have not?

Christopher Chope: Yes, I am. I met representatives from Leeds city council and from Reading borough council today, and on a previous occasion I met representatives from Leeds city council. Both those councils—in fairness to them, they have a different view about their own needs compared with their colleagues' needs—recognise that their priorities can be satisfied without penalising pedlars in a way that causes a great deal of concern to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to other Members.

Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I have been closely involved in the discussions with Reading borough council and the business community in the Reading area. Will he reflect on his earlier comments, which seemed to suggest that Reading borough council was prepared to withdraw its Bill? In fact, that is not the case.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) anticipates what I am about to say. Canterbury has already been raised; Reading has now been raised—but the motion concerns Manchester and Bournemouth. I hope that the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) will not think that I am trying to encourage the hon. Gentleman to go down the wrong route. I am sure that he knows not to do so.
	While I am on my feet, let me say this. I think that it is a question of balance. It is quite difficult to maintain an equitable distinction between the content, or the merits, of the Bills and reasons why a revival motion should or should not be accepted. The fact of the report to which the hon. Member for Christchurch has referred is an argument in question. To give too much detail about that report would, I think, tilt the balance unfairly.

Christopher Chope: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance. Let me respond to the intervention from the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) by saying that I am sure we shall have a chance to discuss the issue in relation to Reading, but also—I think that I should put this on record—that I do not think I said that Reading borough council was keen to withdraw the Bill. I suggested that it was keen to amend significantly clause 5, which relates to pedlars. Perhaps we shall be able to discuss that later in tonight's proceedings.
	You referred to the Durham report, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have argued that it constitutes new information. Prompted by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I have also referred to the Minister's written response to the report, which I think also introduces new information and which, in my view, presents a compelling reason for the House not to exercise its discretion and allow these Bills to be revived.

John Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Durham study observes that circumstances will vary considerably from borough to borough, and, rather than recommending national legislation covering the whole area, states that it will be up to individual boroughs to present and justify its own proposals? Does he not agree that, in the case of the two Bills whose revival we are now considering, the justification process could take place equally appropriately during a Committee or a Report stage? In fairness, if my hon. Friend wants the debate, he should allow it to take place at those times.
	My hon. Friend said that there was not a great deal of evidence of demand because there had been only five convictions in Manchester and only three in the Dorset area. However, as he is from Dorset, discussions with the Dorset constabulary will have left him in no doubt that they find it very difficult to secure convictions without devoting a huge quantity of police time to this matter, and also that we experience a good deal of rather more serious crime in the area. Is it possible that the constabulary devote their resources to dealing with that rather than to convicting pedlars?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that, in the course of this interlocution between two distinguished members of the Chairmen's Panel, one might easily find the other to be out of order as a result of the length of interventions such as that.

Christopher Chope: You will never find me criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He has a very distinguished record. It was great that we were able to enter the House together all those years ago, in 1983—although, unfortunately, my hon. Friend has been a great deal more successful than me in retaining the confidence of the electorate in his original seat.
	Let me deal with the substance of what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that, being diligent, he has read the report from Durham university, and will be aware that it expressed criticism of Dorset police for misleading pedlars in relation to what they say is the law relating to pedlary and the way in which it applied in Dorset. I hope that he will draw the position to the attention of the Dorset constabulary so that it can be put right before his Bill is considered in Committee.

John Butterfill: My hon. Friend has already done so.

Christopher Chope: I have not yet done so, but perhaps we will send a note of the record to the constabulary.
	My hon. Friend was mistaken in his intervention in that he was equating prosecutions with convictions, and, of course, it is for the courts to convict, not the police. The question is: how many prosecutions have been brought and have resulted in convictions? That task is normally given to street trading officers and local authority enforcement rather than the police. However, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the new information that there have only been three convictions in Dorset in the last period for which figures are available—a period of four years between 2002 and 2006.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has considerable knowledge of this subject. In his discussions with the promoters of the private Bills we are debating, has he addressed the fact that we now have considerable experience of Bills that have been passed by this House, notably those in respect of the city of Westminster in 1999, Newcastle in 2000, London in 2003, Medway in 2004 and Maidstone, Leicester and Liverpool in 2006? Has he compared the workings of the authorities that have managed to get private Bills through this House with those of the authorities that have not yet managed to do so?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Obviously, I have not been able to do my own direct research on this matter.  [ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) sounds doubtful about that, but I assure him that that is the correct state of play. I have before me paragraph 213 of the Durham university report. I shall not quote all of it, but it says:
	"The direct effects of private acts are difficult to assess, in terms of being able to eliminate illegal street traders. With regard to the Acts introduced in 2006 (Leicester, Liverpool and Maidstone), the effects may not be fully understood for some time. One of their most obvious impacts is that genuine pedlars remove themselves from areas where they must trade from door-to-door or face possible criminalisation."
	So one might say that the jury is still out on that. However, this issue is dealt with in a lot more detail there than in my summary of it here.

Philip Davies: As the jury is still out and the report says that we still do not really know what the effect has been, is that not even more of a reason why these Bills should not be revived now and we should wait until further consideration has been given to the impact of previous ones?

Christopher Chope: That is a statement of self-evident common sense. It is particularly important to pay regard to the costs involved in all this, as this is not a cost-free area of operation. Introducing private Bills costs money, and that burden falls directly on the local taxpayer. I know from my discussions with some of the councils that are concerned about this that they have to evaluate the costs and the benefits of particular courses of legislative action. It is a pity that there has not so far been any evidence that either of the Bills that we are discussing has been the subject of concern expressed at local council level as to whether they will continue to provide good value for money, having regard to all other possibilities.
	The issue of trolleys is now very much out in the open. On Second Reading, there was a lot of discussion—not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury—about the burden on local people caused by pedlars using trolleys. The Durham university report makes it clear that only half the pedlars interviewed use trolleys but all of them—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have tried to give the hon. Gentleman a ruling that the fact of the report is one thing, the detail within it quite another. I recommend that he observe that distinction.

Christopher Chope: I shall endeavour to comply, as always, with your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Peter Bone: I wish to be clear on the issue of costs. If the Bills are revived, would the councils and the local taxpayers incur more costs? Has my hon. Friend estimated how much extra cost to this House would result from their revival?

Christopher Chope: The short answer is that I have not estimated how much the cost would be to this House. These two Bills have had their Second Readings so if they are revived, they would need to go into Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West will know what the possible timetable is, but I imagine that there would be a separate Committee for each Bill, because separate interests are involved, and that the councils involved would face costs for dealing with those proceedings.
	Much of the content of the two Bills is relatively uncontroversial. The point I am making is that if their promoters were saying that the very controversial bits and the bits that are now contradicted by the evidence from Durham university were to be taken out of the Bills, there would not be an argument against allowing them to be revived. When I came into the Chamber this evening, I hoped that I would hear from my hon. Friend or from the hon. Member for Manchester, Central that, in the light of the evidence, there was to be a modification. It may be that in due course such a modification will be made, but we have to judge the situation on the evidence before us at the moment. That evidence suggests that there is no willingness on the part of the promoters to compromise or to reflect upon the findings of the exhaustive study carried out by Durham university.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will certainly be aware that the House may not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he should face the microphone, because if he does not do so the reporters will not always catch his words? I am sure that he would want them to be on the record, so although I understand his courtesy in turning round to address the hon. Member, he should really be addressing the microphone.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My head will face the microphone and my hand will face my hon. Friend. He will be aware, although the House may not be, that the private Bill procedure in Committee is very different from that in respect of most Committees in this House. I served on the Committee considering the private British Waterways Bill, when British Waterways had a Queen's counsel on hand for many months. That must have cost it a huge sum, so I think that the answer to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) is that this will be a very expensive procedure.

Christopher Chope: I have not had the experience that my Front-Bench colleague has of serving on a private Bill Committee, but I am sure that what he said will have been noted by the council tax payers in Manchester and Bournemouth. Although we may find that people have no willingness to compromise tonight, taxpayers may be asking whether it is really worth concentrating on clauses 5 of the respective Bills if that is going to add a significant expense to the burden on local taxpayers.
	I shall conclude by drawing attention to the fact that another of the Durham university report's findings is that if a local authority takes strong enforcement action under the existing law, it can achieve its objective of ensuring that it has a lawful regime in respect of street trading and pedlars. That is a further reason why councils that have not done much so far on enforcement might think of it as being a more cost-effective way forward than the process of private Bill legislation.

Greg Knight: The point about fees and costs cuts both ways, because if we allow the Bills to proceed, the promoters would no doubt argue that the Standing Orders state:
	"The bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the last session or the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages, and no new fees shall be charged to those stages."
	So the promoters could argue that they are trying to be cost-effective in not leaving the matter in abeyance by waiting to hear what the Government say and starting again at a later stage.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is noted for his contrariness on such occasions, and it is important that that point should be put on the record—it does not appear that anyone else was intending to refer to it. My response would be that the relatively small fees associated with the placing of a private Bill in Parliament are modest compared with the costs of giving evidence and providing support during the Committee stage in respect of parts of the Bill that subsequently come to be regarded as redundant or incapable of achieving enactment. My right hon. Friend's background and knowledge as a distinguished lawyer show that he is without self-interest in these matters. He is always as keen to minimise costs to members of the public as he used to be to his clients.
	In summary, I have some strong reservations about the merits of reviving the Bills, and I hope that I am not the only Member who has such reservations.

Gareth Thomas: As ever, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). I welcome this opportunity to consider the revival motions and I will listen with interest to the contributions from other hon. Members.
	In an attempt to inform the debate and to help Members in deciding whether to support the motions, I thought that I should comment on the research referred to by the hon. Gentleman. While I have considerable respect for him, as I do for every right hon. and hon. Member, I would not want the House to allow his view of what he thinks the Government's position should be to stand without any Government comment. I should also make it clear that, following the custom, the Government do not take any view on the content or progress of private Bills—that is a matter for Parliament.
	The House will be aware that the research I was able to announce when these Bills were debated last June was published by my Department in February this year. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, we agree with the main conclusions from the research findings. First, there is scope for a more flexible enforcement regime in respect of unlicensed street trading, including the possibility of less burdensome options to criminal prosecution. Secondly, there would be support from Government for national guidance on the meaning and application of the current arrangements, which contain ambiguities, the interpretation of which varies across the country, as the research found. Thirdly, we accept too that there is scope for modernising the Pedlars Act 1871, for example by updating and standardising the pedlar's certificate to enable easier identification of genuine certificates and to clarify the definition of permitted activities of certified pedlars, among other things. I also want to acknowledge that the Government accept that, in some areas and on some occasions, there might be a reasonable case for additional restrictions.
	As to what our next steps will be, I should tell the House that there has already been considerable feedback on the research from various organisations, as well as from licensed street traders, individual certified pedlars, and local authorities and so on. Last month, my officials met representatives from the local authorities whose Bills are under discussion tonight. Hon. Members might wish to note that that this summer, my Department will be issuing a consultation document and will seek views from as wide a constituency as we can on the findings of the research and on possible ways forward.
	I am not yet in a position to set out firm proposals, but I expect that, in general, the consultation would cover more flexible enforcement tools, the possibility of guidance for pedlars and enforcers, the question of updating the Pedlars Act and the possibility of adapting the street trader licensing scheme in respect of the activities of pedlars.
	I and others in Government have not formed our view on what the exact response to the research should be. We genuinely want feedback and evidence from as wide a group as possible to help us think through the various options. Developments in the consultation will be highlighted on the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform website. I hope that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will follow it and study it with a little more care, if he will forgive me for saying so, in future.

David Lepper: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about consultation and I am sure that he will be consulting local authorities and local councils. Will he also give a commitment to consulting business improvement district boards, where they exist, across the country? They take a particular view about the areas that they represent in relation to this issue.

Gareth Thomas: I certainly want the views of business. I would welcome comments from business improvement districts, and I welcome the chance to put that on the record. I shall certainly ensure that my officials consider whether there are particular business improvement districts to which we need to ensure that we highlight the consultation document.
	Finally, I should make it clear that the Government would not have a problem if the revival motions were to be carried.

Philip Davies: Does the Minister not understand, though, the logic of the argument? I commend the Government for what they are doing, for having commissioned the report and for carrying out extensive consultation. That is certainly to be welcomed. However, does he not understand the logic of the position that reviving the Bills would be premature, given that the Government are undertaking a process that which should be welcomed by both sides of the House?

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to have the hon. Gentleman's support. I hope that he will be sufficiently open-minded to support more of what the Government are seeking to do. Let me point him gently towards the point made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill). The Government accept that, on occasion, there are particular circumstances in particular areas that are worthy of consideration.

Christopher Chope: The Minister is being typically generous in giving way. May I press him a little further on the time scale, because that is obviously very relevant to our debate this evening? If he issues the consultation paper in the summer, when will he expect the closing date for that consultation to be? When does he anticipate that the Government would make an announcement? Would there be the possibility, for example, that legislation might be introduced, if the Government reached the conclusion that that was necessary, during the next Session of Parliament? If he could answer that question, it might give some of the promoters of these Bills grounds to say, "Let's hold our horses for the time being."

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently long in the tooth to know that I cannot tonight give commitments about legislation in the way that he would like. I recognise that there is concern about this issue across the House, and that is one of the reasons why we took the initiative to carry out the research. We want to respond to hon. Members' concerns about the need for a national response to the issue, and to make progress as quickly as possible.
	Finally, I return to the point that I was making when the hon. Member for Shipley intervened, which is that the Government would not have a problem if the revival motions were to be carried tonight.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, the genesis of these revival motions was as long ago as 22 January 2007. We had a considerable debate on this matter on Second Reading on 2 June 2008, there was a further debate on 29 October 2008, and here we are today with these revival motions. The private Bills that we are seeking to revive all do much the same thing—that is, they try to incorporate the definition in clause 3 of the Pedlars Act 1871 into schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.
	Much of the debate about the Bill does not focus on the true problem of what a pedlar is. Does he go from door to door, or occupy the same spot in a market square every day? It is a debatable point. To be totally clear, the House needs to hear again how chapter 96 of the 1871 Act defines a pedlar. Clause 3 states:
	"The term 'pedlar' means any hawker, pedlar, petty chapman, tinker, caster of metals, mender of chairs, or other person who, without any horse or other beast bearing or drawing burden, travels and trades on foot and goes from town to town or to other men's houses, carrying to sell or exposing for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or procuring orders for goods, wares, or merchandise immediately to be delivered, or selling or offering for sale his skill in handicraft".
	It is obvious that a pedlar is very different from a street market trader, who is covered by different legislation. The legislation covering pedlars requires them to go to the local police for a certificate, which they can usually obtain for about £12 or £15, whereas a street market trader has to obtain a licence from the local authority that costs in the region of £500 to £1,000. That is a different order of cost.

Tony Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am happy to give way to the sponsor of the Manchester Bill.

Tony Lloyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall be brief, as I do not want to encourage long speeches. Will he confirm that what he said is not absolutely accurate, in that to obtain a pedlar's licence a person does not have to go to the local police force in the area where he or she intends to peddle? The licence can be obtained from any force, even though its officers know nothing about the area where the purported trade might take place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right, and he makes a point that I was coming to. For purposes of convenience, a pedlar would normally go to his local police force, but he does not necessarily have to do so. Having got a certificate, he can trade in any area where legislation does not prohibit him from doing so. At the moment, therefore, he can trade in Manchester, Bournemouth, Canterbury or any other area of the country, provided that he has that certificate.
	That is part of the problem, and I was delighted to hear what the Minister said about the Government's intentions in relation to the Durham study. Anyone interested in the subject should read that study—or at least its summary, opening remarks and some of its evidence on prosecutions and complaints—as I think that the problem may have been exaggerated around the country. I think that, on the whole, the perceived problem is much greater than the actual problem because, on the whole, pedlars are law-abiding people who go about their business peacefully.
	The main complaint is about competition, given the procedure that I described: pedlars can buy a certificate for £12 or £15, whereas a street trader has to pay between £500 and £1,000. Street traders object to pedlars trading alongside them—sometimes with exactly the same sort of goods, be it balloons, trinkets, bits of jewellery or whatever—because there is unfair competition. That is where some of the complaints stem from.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has great mastery of the subject and of the Durham report. May I draw to his attention an extract from page 66? It states:
	"Street traders on the whole do not sell the same goods as pedlars, nor do they compete directly for customers. One Street trader did express a view of lost earnings to illegal street traders selling inferior goods, but overall levels of competition were low."

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend usefully draws attention to that paragraph, but somewhere else the report notes that competition is one of the causes of complaint. On the whole, the number of complaints in any local authority area is fairly low, so it seems to me that every sponsor of such a Bill—the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) has spoken in support of his Bill—has to make a crystal-clear case as to why their Bill should be revived.
	Like the Government, the Opposition have no particular view officially about whether the Bills should be revived. I have no problem if they are revived; if the House in its wisdom votes in favour of their revival and they go into Committee, I have no problem with that. Even if they go through Committee, pass their other stages and are enacted I shall have no problem with it. However, when we discussed the matter on 12 June 2008 I argued from the Opposition Benches that we should have a national study. We now have such a study and on the whole it concludes that there are special circumstances in each local authority area. On the whole, contrary to what I argued on 12 June 2008, the Durham report seems to make it clear that each local case should be taken on its merits, although whether that will continue to be the prevailing view I do not know.
	As to whether the Bills should be revived, I was delighted to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that we shall have new guidance from his Department when it has taken evidence. That is really important. Evidence is the key to the whole matter. I repeat even more strongly that it is up to each local authority area that brings forward a Bill to produce evidence of why it needs those powers. All too often in this country—in this place, if nowhere else—we tend to rush into legislation because there is a perceived problem. There may indeed be a small actual problem, but one has to consider whether it is sufficient to warrant a change in legislation.
	There is no doubt that a change in legislation would make the act of peddling a very different craft—if we can call it that—from what it is at present, so I was pleased to hear that the Government have embarked on gathering evidence from any interested party. Once they have the evidence they will produce guidance, which will run along some of the useful lines to which the Durham report alludes.
	We need better methods of enforcement and of issuing certificates. The certificates need to be clear; they need to include a photograph and to be held on a national database. They should be enforceable across the country, so that a pedlar moving from Manchester to Canterbury to Bournemouth can be apprehended and prosecuted if he is misbehaving. We want clear laws that are easily interpreted and operated, so I was delighted to hear about the guidance.
	I was delighted to hear that the whole licensing regime will be considered. At present, the local police force issues the licence—or in fact, it may not be the local police force, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Central said. That police force would be relying only on Criminal Records Bureau information, not even local knowledge of the person and whether they are a true and fit person to hold such a certificate. We need to tighten up that procedure.

Brian Iddon: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that a residency requirement must be met to obtain a certificate from the police force? That suggests that the police force involved would have to be the local police force.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to hear that intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who of course has a long record of trying to introduce a private Member's Bill to amend national legislation, so that these private Bills are not necessary. We had a long argument about that in the previous debate on the subject, and I do not want to go over that again. There may be a residency requirement, but as the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, made absolutely clear, the person concerned does not have to go to his local police force. A person from Manchester can go to a police force in London, for example, to obtain a certificate. Although he needs to prove residency and prove a good character through the CRB records, there is no local knowledge of his character. That is a flaw in the argument. Some argue—indeed, in the Durham report it is argued—that the local authority should be the licensing authority, so that the provisions are coterminous with those in the street trading legislation. There are arguments for and against that.
	I do not think that we want to prolong these proceedings too much, because I know that the sponsor of the Manchester City Council Bill—the hon. Member for Manchester, Central—and my hon. Friends want to get to a vote. It is important that we get to a vote, so that we can at least consider the next motion that is due to come before the House.
	In summing up, I simply say that the whole thing is very unsatisfactory; I think that the whole House would agree with that. The private Bill procedure is arcane. It is difficult to get a private Bill through the House, and it is expensive and time-consuming for a local authority. I therefore maintain my position, despite what the Durham report says. That is why I shall be very interested to see what happens. If we come into government after the next election, we will certainly continue the Government's process of gathering evidence, producing guidance and considering whether the national legislation needs to be altered. If we are not careful, we will, in addition to having to consider the Bills before the House tonight, be here many times considering similar Bills from other local authorities. That is an unsatisfactory way to deal with the matter, and it is a very bad use of the House's time.

Lorely Burt: The question before us tonight is whether the Bills should be allowed to be revived. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) says no; he says that the Durham report has discredited the provisions of the Bills. He says that the Government will produce their own report over the summer. However, there is to be a free vote; the Government have said that they will not oppose the motion. The question tonight is really whether the will of the House should be observed, and whether a small number of MPs should be allowed to hold up the progress that will apparently—we will find out—start to be made. If there are flaws in the Bills, why not let them make progress? Why not allow the hon. Gentleman to use his undoubted extensive knowledge in Committee, where he can help to iron out the flaws that he perceives?
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who speaks for the Conservatives, has said that many local authorities have already got their private Bills through the House. It seems inequitable for us to try to halt the process now. The train is in motion, but suddenly we are having to put the brakes on. That means that some local authorities can implement their private legislation, but some will not be able to do so. If whether the Bills can make progress is at the discretion of the House, we should let the House divide and decide. Councils are suffering because of the problems caused by pedlars. Of course they want to serve the best interests of their constituents.
	We have heard from the Minister that, if the Bills are not revived and the process does not go through, the Government have agreed to carry out a consultation. My plea to them, on behalf of local authorities that have not introduced Bills, is that they should bring forward a national framework which local authorities can adopt through a byelaw at their own discretion. My colleagues and I will support the progress of the revival motions tonight.

Peter Bone: I shall be brief, as I had not intended to speak in the debate. We have heard a great deal about the merits of the Bills, but the issue tonight is whether such Bills should be revived. It is rather like an LBW decision. All the boxes must be ticked to make sure that they apply, so that the Bills can be revived.
	The first question is whether the promoters of the Bills have made a case for bringing them back. The Standing Orders suggest that such Bills should not be brought back, because the process would not exist if Parliament thought they should automatically be brought back. The argument is a technical one about whether the promoters have made the case that there is an exceptional reason to bring the Bills back, and whether anything has changed. The Minister put the Government's case succinctly. Clearly, things have changed and there may well be national legislation.
	Would the promoters of the Bills lose out by not having them revived tonight? We heard that the cost of bringing the Bills back at a later stage would not be significant, but that proceeding with the Bills now in Committee would be very expensive for the councils. Is it possible that taxpayers in those areas would say, "If my council had only waited a little while, there would have been national guidelines and a national process, and we needn't have wasted that money"? On balance, the case for revival has unfortunately not been made strongly enough for me to support it.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 10.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That the promoters of the Manchester City Council Bill [ Lords] and Bournemouth Borough Council Bill [ Lords], which were originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2006-07 on 22 January 2007, should have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).

Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill

Debate resumed.
	 Question (15 January) again proposed,
	That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill, which were originally introduced in this House in Session 2007-08 on 22 January 2008, should have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).

Christopher Chope: In the absence of anybody representing one of the four conurbations involved—

Julian Brazier: I am so sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I was at the other end of the Chamber waiting for the second vote when this business was called, which is why I have decided to explain to my hon. Friend that I was not absent, but here. Of course, he has the Floor at the moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct. Mr. Christopher Chope.

Christopher Chope: I meant to indicate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as nobody representing any of the promoters of these Bills had risen to speak, I thought it important that I should do so in order to ask some questions. I hope that the promoters and their representatives will not feel too modest about being prepared to share with a wider public the reasons why they think that their Bills should be revived.
	The arguments in relation to these four Bills are slightly different from those relating to the two that we discussed earlier—the Bournemouth Borough Council Bill and the Manchester City Council Bill. Although they are all included in one motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that one of them, the Canterbury City Council Bill, has already received a Second Reading and is therefore, it might be argued, in a category more similar to the other two Bills. On the other hand, one might say that during that previous debate there was unfinished business between my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and me, and that there would be an opportunity to develop the arguments as to why the situation in Canterbury warrants a revival. The difference between the Canterbury Bill and the Manchester and Bournemouth Bills is that the Canterbury Bill has not yet been to the other place and is therefore on a slower time scale than the other two. Therefore, the arguments that were deployed in the previous debate for giving the promoters a chance to rethink their strategy in light of the Durham university report weigh more strongly against the case for Canterbury's revival than in respect of Manchester and Bournemouth.
	As regards the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) about the relative costs of going back to square one if the promised Government initiatives in the form of legislation or guidance are not forthcoming, those cost penalties will be less in the case of Canterbury because the proceedings have reached an earlier stage than in the case of Manchester and Bournemouth. However, the other three Bills that we are considering have not yet received their Second Readings.
	When I examined the guidance in relation to the revival of Bills, I found a statement—I think it is in the private Bill procedure—suggesting that if a Bill had not made any progress at all during a Session of Parliament, the House would be reluctant to allow it to be revived in a subsequent Session or carried over from one Session to another. Of course, the Nottingham City Council Bill, the Leeds City Council Bill and the Reading Borough Council Bill did not receive a Second Reading in the last Session, so they are completely de novo and would need a Second Reading in this Session. The question one asks is why, if they did not make any progress in the last Session, they should be allowed to be revived at this stage.

James Gray: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I am asking a foolish question as a relative novice at these procedural matters. Is it not odd that although the Bills whose revival we are discussing reached different stages of their lives in the last Session, they should all be brought together in a single revival motion? It is a sort of hybrid motion, bringing together some rather good things that are more advanced in their considerations with some things that are bad. Procedurally, would it not have been better had the promoters brought forward different motions so that it was possible to consider each Bill separately?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point, but I am in no position to comment, because the decision on how this business should be dealt with was taken by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and the decision was to have all four Bills put together. In fairness, if my hon. Friend or myself had wanted to table an amendment, for example to delete one or more of the Bills from the motion, we would probably have been able to do so and have it debated. His point may give grounds for seeking from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a ruling as to whether there could be separate Divisions on each individual Bill, or on the Bills that are in separate categories with separate arguments relating to them. My hon. Friend would probably have to raise that with you on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Philip Davies: As my hon. Friend knows, I always look to him to improve my knowledge of parliamentary procedure.

Greg Knight: Why don't you look to me?

Philip Davies: I look to my right hon. Friend as well, of course.
	I am a new boy in this place, so will my hon. Friend explain what difference it makes one way or the other whether the Bills that have not yet had a Second Reading are revived?

Christopher Chope: The main difference, as I understand it from looking at the precedent, is this: if a promoter has not made any progress with their Bill in one Session, why should they be able to crave the indulgence of the House to have it carried over or revived in a second? Where is the evidence that they will be able to make any more progress in that Session? Does there come a stage when what is happening is a bit of an abuse of the process and procedures of the House? In the previous debate I cited the example of what happened with the Northern Bank Bill, which was a private Bill in the previous Session. It did not make any progress and was blocked at the end of the Session. As a result, the promoters of the Bill had second thoughts and decided to withdraw it.

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance on the procedural matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has been roaming around a little bit. I am sure that he is not calling into question the way in which the Chairman of Ways and Means brought forward the motion, which of course was perfectly proper. However, the point that my hon. Friend is making, as I understand it—forgive me if my knowledge of procedure is not all that it might be—is that there are differences between the various Bills that the motion would revive. Some might be better than others and some have gone further than others in their process through Parliament. I am not sure whether it is allowable under the procedures, but would it not be sensible to allow several Divisions on the four Bills that we are considering?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The short answer is no. In the revival motion, there is no distinction between the Bills that we are discussing. Everything has been done in order. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, the Chairman of Ways and Means agreed that the motion should go forward. Everything is in order, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman's points are debating points.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful for that ruling, if that is what it is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would hate the hon. Gentleman to think that I was making a ruling. I am simply telling him that everything we are doing today is completely in order.

Christopher Chope: I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that what we are doing is not in order. I was trying to explain that there are distinctions between the four Bills, which are grouped together, in that only one has had a Second Reading.
	Another distinction is worthy of the House's attention. The promoters of two of the Bills that have not had a Second Reading have said in discussions and in writing to me—and, we can infer, to other hon. Members who are concerned about the Bills—that they are willing to compromise significantly about the content of the clauses in the respective measures on pedlary. If the promoters of those two Bills have expressed a willingness to compromise on the main subject of my objections to the measures collectively, might not it possible to examine the two Bills separately from the others in the group? If the promoters of two measures are prepared to compromise, thereby shortening the Committee proceedings and possibly Second Reading, through responding to concerns and the findings of the Durham university report, when the promoters of the other Bills are not willing to do that, why is not it possible for hon. Members to adjudicate about the Bills that merit a revival?

Martin Salter: To revert to a point that I tried to make earlier, is not it the case that the hon. Gentleman's discussions with Reading borough council about the activities of pedlars who act effectively as stallholders—the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned that—showed that the council was prepared to negotiate and be flexible? That is an argument not for opposing the revival motion, but for allowing it to go forward so that we can reach Committee as soon as possible.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my point, which I am getting around to raising with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the two councils—Reading and Leeds—are prepared to compromise, to respond to public opinion, as reflected in the Durham university report, and to council tax payers' concerns about possible abortive costs incurred, and to consider amending clause 5 of the respective Bills, should not they be given preferential treatment, compared with councils that still have their heads in the sand, believing that they can carry on regardless, as though the Durham study had never been conducted, there were no findings in its 90-odd pages and no issues had arisen from it? The Minister said in the previous debate that the Government acknowledged that the study raised issues which merited their attention and would be subject to consultation.
	The question that I would like to put—perhaps I could put it formally in a point of order—is this. Is there any scope for the revival of the Reading Borough Council Bill and the Leeds City Council Bill to be considered in separate votes from those on the other two Bills, in respect of which there are different considerations?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with one motion this evening that deals with four councils. It either goes through on that basis or it does not, but tonight is not the night to divide them up. The Bills may receive different treatment further down the line if they are revived, but tonight we have one motion before us dealing with four councils and they cannot be dealt with separately.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to you for that ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What it means—this will disappoint the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter)—is that were there to be a Division in respect of the group, hon. Members who were against the revival of one or more of the Bills would be obliged to vote against the revival motion, notwithstanding the fact that they might have sympathy with the approach adopted by the imaginative councils of Reading and Leeds.

Martin Salter: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that I am obliged to point out the complete nonsense of his seeking to impugn the motives of Reading borough council? The council's willingness to be flexible is based not on 90 or 19 pages of the Durham university report, but on a problem on the streets of Reading, which is that of pedlars fraudulently acting as stallholders. Does he agree that it is not for Reading borough council to ascribe motives to Nottingham, Canterbury, Leeds or any other authority, but to argue its case, and that the issues are not related?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman is being unnecessarily adversarial, because I think that we are both on the same side, although that may be a surprise to him. However, if he says that Reading borough council's attitude is unrelated to the report produced by Durham university, all I can say is that that is certainly not the case for Leeds city council. I have with me an e-mail from Leeds city council sent on 6 March that says:
	"I refer to our meeting in January—regarding the street trading legislation proposed by Leeds City Council—when we agreed to consider the possibility of amending Clause 5 of the proposed legislation."
	This is the relevant bit:
	"The report produced by Durham University has since been published and we have considered our proposed amendment in the light of that report."
	Leeds city council therefore links its amendment to the findings of that report. When I met a representative from Leeds city council and a representative from Reading borough council earlier today, I certainly gained the impression that both councils were motivated to support an amendment because of the contents of the Durham report and not just because of the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has articulated.

Julian Brazier: I wonder whether my hon. Friend, of whom I am extremely fond, is not quite close to arriving at the conclusion that, in any proceeding of the House, outside bodies with genuine concerns that they wish to be brought before Parliament would, it seems, be very unwise to engage in negotiations of any sort with him.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend will have to answer to the people of Leeds. Two officers travelled to London from Leeds today specifically to have a meeting with me to discuss the issue. I would assert strongly that the expenditure involved in travelling to that meeting was properly incurred, because as a result they may be able to get their legislation on to the statute book in a way that they would be content with and rather sooner than councils that continue to defy the objections of those of us who are keen to protect the rights of pedlars.

Paul Truswell: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the main motivation for the negotiations between officers from Leeds and himself is to remove his obstructions and the tactics that he employs?

Christopher Chope: Well, if that is their motive, it is not how they expressed it. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman—I know about his loyalty to the city of Leeds—misrepresents the position of his council officers. I do not know which party is in control of Leeds city council; all I know is that in dealing with the officers, I have been dealing with the issues on their merits and at no stage did those officers employ ad hominem arguments against me or say that they were giving way because of threats or whatever. What they decided is that clause 5 as it stands at the moment in their Bill and in the Bill—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments very carefully. He will remember that we are now debating whether these Bills should be revived or not—not what alterations might be made to them if the House decides to revive them.

Christopher Chope: I absolutely agree with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Basically, I have a bit of a split personality on this issue because I am rather sympathetic to the case for reviving the Leeds City Council Bill on account of that council's compromising attitude, and I have a similar benevolence towards the Reading Borough Council Bill revival motion. I am much less enthusiastic, however, about the Nottingham City Council Bill, which has not yet received its Second Reading—notwithstanding the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, whose case, I suspect, falls between those two extremes.

Philip Davies: I shall try to help my hon. Friend here. I understand his keenness to support Leeds and Reading, but given that neither of those Bills have actually had a Second Reading, does he agree with me that there is not a great deal to revive?

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. When we decide whether to vote Aye or No in any Division, we will have to weigh up the balance of the relative merits of those four Bills.

Peter Bone: This is a new process to me and while I am sure, of course, that the procedures before us are correct, I am rather surprised that four Bills have been lumped together. For two of the council, I would be voting one way, but for the other two I would be voting the other way. I would thus be very grateful for my hon. Friend's advice about which way he believes we should go.

Christopher Chope: I am trying to reach a conclusion to my remarks as quickly as possible. I hope that, when I reach that conclusion, I will be able to provide some clear advice. It is inherent in what I have said so far that this is a very difficult issue for fair-minded people. Ultimately, we can have only one vote on four different Bills, which are all slightly different.

Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend share my concern and my surprise and amazement that in the long period during which the House has been looking at these matters, not one speech has been made in support of the Nottingham City Council Bill? Neither have we had any intervention relating to that particular Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that that Bill provides the weakest case here?

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we were to give marks for these Bills, I think that the Nottingham City Council Bill would have nil points; the other Bills would have some points, but how many would be a matter of debate. I agree with my right hon. Friend's conclusion that the Nottingham city council case has not been made in this Chamber, so why should we indulge the council by allowing it another year even to get round to having Second Reading? If one feels that that is the most important argument before us this evening, in order to express our feelings about the failures of Nottingham city council, we would need to vote against this revival motion, notwithstanding our sympathies for the other Bills before us.
	I hope that the promoters of the Bills who have not yet expressed a willingness to compromise will be reminded to do so. There is much in these Bills that is not controversial, is of common interest, and will be supported by Members in all parts of the House. Why spoil the prospect of an early legislative achievement by insisting on including provisions which, according to any view, are highly controversial, are the subject of active Government involvement and discussion, and, as we heard from the Minister, will be the subject of a consultation paper in the summer? We do not know whether that will lead to legislation, but given the present rate of progress, I see little prospect of the Bills that we are considering tonight—whose Second Readings must still be debated in the Chamber, and whose merits must be voted on if they are revived—arriving on the statute book, having been dealt with by this House and the other place, before time runs out for this Government and there must be a general election.
	By then, there will be a completely different scenario. Hopefully, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will be not just the Minister responsible for this area of activity, but a Minister with a wider area of activity in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform—or perhaps a Department that will have a new title that slips off the tongue rather more easily, and will be more effective. In any event, the situation will have changed significantly.
	One is bound to ask, on behalf of council tax payers who will be affected by these provisions, whether continuing to try to put these Bills on the statute book constitutes a good investment of their money. Would it not be much better to wait for the results of the Government's consultation in the summer, and see whether they will produce guidance or fresh legislation? That seems to me to accord with common sense, but ultimately, of course, it is a matter for the promoters. If they insist on bringing the matter to the House again, we, as Members of Parliament, must make a judgment on whether we wish to support the revival motions.
	I hope that one thing will emerge from tonight's debate: the awareness of the Chairman of Ways and Means that there are now distinct differences between two of the Bills and the other two, and that they should therefore be treated differently in relation to issues pertaining to the Second Reading debates. I put that on the record because I think that it would be disappointing if all the Bills were dealt with at the same time. Similar arguments relate to the merits or otherwise of carrying the Bills over, but that was discussed in our earlier debate, and I certainly do not wish to detain the House by restating those arguments. What I do wish to do is record my appreciation of the efforts being made by Leeds city council and Reading borough council to reflect carefully on the necessity or otherwise of clause 5 in the Bills, relating to pedlars.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend not consider one thing very unsatisfactory? I seem to recall that in our last debate, in June, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) said that if these particular Bills were recalled, up to 50 more councils would wish to present private Bills to the House. The House would have to spend a considerable amount of time dealing with the matter. That is why I think that it would be better dealt with through the Government's consultation route, through a change in the guidelines if necessary and, if further necessary, through a change in legislation.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend has made a good point. Some of us have been involved in extensive debates on these Bills. The Second Reading debates on the Manchester City Council and Bournemouth Borough Council Bills took place in June last year, were adjourned, and were resumed in October. Those of us who were involved in those debates may like to take some credit for the fact that our actions deterred a lot of the other councils, to which my hon. Friend refers, from bringing forward their private Bills, no doubt much to the relief of the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Private Bill Office, because they wanted to reflect on what was happening, not least in terms of the Durham university report, the response of this House to that report, and now the Government response. Therefore, my hon. Friend's point is important.
	We are concerned about piecemeal legislation making the situation unsatisfactory for the genuine pedlar, who would not know whether different rules applied in different parts of the country if different regimes operate in different places. Concern has also been expressed about the impact on adjoining boroughs and local authority areas, and there is a general desire to have some common practice again in the way in which the police licence pedlars so that those licences apply throughout the country. At present, each individual police force is responsible for licensing shotguns that can then be used anywhere in the country, but they have a common system for doing that, and I think there is a lot to be said for having a similarly common system for the licensing of pedlars.
	I hope there will be a response from the promoters of some of these Bills that will help steer us past this difficult dilemma to do with whether or not we should show our sympathy for Reading and Leeds by saying we should either abstain or support the revival motion, or whether we should display our displeasure at Nottingham and therefore say we should oppose the revival motion. The jury will be out on that, but I hope that we will get some responses to help us reach a conclusion.

Martin Salter: I am very happy to help steer the House, and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), through the intricacies of this argument, although I doubt very much whether any of the words I choose to utter will steer him into the same Division Lobby as me a little later.
	I have some respect for academic studies, but what motivates me is what the police, traders and the public in my town of Reading say to me, not what some professor chooses to write about a problem—they may or may not have a different perception from the ivory tower of an academic institution. What I know is that a significant police operation took place in Reading. It was called Operation Ontology and it was an operation with the council and the Border and Immigration Agency police command team. It targeted immigration offending and criminality by pedlars in Reading town centre. The operation was conducted by local Thames Valley police officers, supported by the neighbourhood policing team and conducted after consultation with Reading borough council licensing department. The purpose of the operation—this is yet another reason for supporting the Bill—was to identify all the pedlars operating in the town centre of Reading during the period of the operation and where necessary to record details, to locate and identify any immigration offenders among the pedlars, to arrest suspected immigration offenders to be dealt with by BIA personnel, and to minimise the impact of this operation on members of the public, the officers themselves and the subjects themselves.
	It is worth reporting that the briefing that elected representatives have been sent by Thames Valley police said that during the operation 10 pedlars were encountered selling a variety of goods and that the stalls from which many of the pedlars were selling items did not lend themselves to being mobile as each time they were pushed the merchandise displayed would fall from the stall on to the ground. This matter was alluded to by not only the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), but the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt). In many cases these are not pedlars under the definition of the 1871 Act, and the Bills merely seek to bring a piece of legislation that was framed in 1871 up to date to reflect modern circumstances and modern pressures.
	It is quite clear that in my town, Reading—I suspect that this is the case in Leeds and elsewhere too—the pedlar certificate has become a £12.50 flag of convenience that is causing tremendous resentment among stall holders, who are paying between £500 and £1,000 for a similar facility. I find it strange that hon. Members from the party that supports business and enterprise appear to be setting themselves against ensuring fair competition and an even playing field. I find it even more surprising that arguments are coming from those on the Conservative Benches against the Cameronian notion of localism; we appear to be hearing arguments for the nationalisation of the regulation of pedlars. That runs contrary to the thrust of the new modern Conservatives and it is frankly illogical, and I find it strange that the Conservative Front-Bench team has not sought to make that point.

Christopher Chope: rose—

Martin Salter: The hon. Gentleman has detained the House for about 90 per cent. of this debate and he has complained consistently that he has not heard from the promoters of the Bills, so if he is a little more patient he will be able to hear from those of us who happen to support them.
	Operation Ontology, which was undertaken by Thames Valley police, identified a number of people working illegally. The report said that it was worth noting that the offenders had no legal—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that he is in danger of launching into a Second Reading speech and he must relate his remarks to why these Bills should be revived?

Martin Salter: I take your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I merely conclude my point by saying that in the course of that operation it was discovered that four people were working illegally, they were removed from the country and none of the pedlars encountered on the day of that operation had any basis on which to stay in the UK. That is in many ways a response to the arguments being made that there is now no case for these Bills to be revived, because these very real problems exist today, they existed last year and they will exist next year.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Martin Salter: I shall give way to the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to mislead, or rather, to misrepresent—I withdraw the word "mislead"—what I have said on behalf of the Opposition. I did raise the issue of competition and the difference in price between a pedlar's certificate and a street licence certificate. I also said that I think that whether these Bills are revived is a matter for the House, but this procedure is expensive for the individual councils involved and thus a better procedure would be if this matter were considered on a national basis in respect of whether guidance needs to be revised and whether, as a result of that, legislation needs to be altered. I would not wish him to misrepresent what I said.

Martin Salter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting the record straight as far as his motives are concerned. I merely respond by saying that there are Conservative-controlled councils that support these measures and that are happy that they have already got legislation of this sort on to the statute book and the system is working well.
	I wish to conclude by making one final point, which touches on why these Bills should be revived. Real damage is being done to small businesses that are struggling to cope in the very difficult economic circumstances that we face. Let us consider Reading's Harris arcade or what is commonly known as "smelly alley"—Union street in Reading. The total cost of rent, rates and overheads for the small units located there probably works out at about £15,000 a unit. One of these Mickey Mouse stalls being erected on the basis of a pedlar's certificate costing £12.50 can immensely damage the business of legitimate traders who are paying up to £15,000 a year purely for rent, rates and overheads. I do not want to see businesses in my town going to the wall because we have failed to grasp the nettle and deal with a very real problem.
	The Reading Borough Council Bill is being promoted by the business improvement district in Reading, which is made up of businesses that have voluntarily joined the scheme and are paying 1 per cent. of their rateable value of business rates to fund that scheme. They want this to happen and it is my job as a local MP to listen to them and to promote this Bill, so I appeal to the House to allow it to be revived.

Julian Brazier: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter), although I was unhappy about his attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has now put the record straight.
	The most relevant aspect of the revival motion—the one thing that has changed since Second Reading—is of course the Durham report. It concedes that there are some local problems, but concludes that there is no national problem. Therefore, as a localist, I would like to see a national framework—probably requiring legislation—that councils can opt into if they wish to do so. Unfortunately, because that option is not available to councils, these four councils have been faced with two bitter options—either to do nothing about this dreadful problem or to expend a great deal of money, the amount of which has been considerably increased by the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), although he remains my hon. Friend, and a small group of other hon. Friends—

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Brazier: Each time I raised a point with my hon. Friend last time, he failed to answer it. In the first debate, he promised that he would answer my point in the relevant debate. I will therefore give way to him if he answers my point first.

Christopher Chope: I do not think that I can give the answer in an intervention because, apart from anything else, it would take us outside the scope of this debate, which is on a revival motion.
	When we had the Second Reading of the Canterbury City Council Bill, my hon. Friend was gracious enough to accept that it included a provision on touting that he had not addressed and that should be considered in Committee.

Julian Brazier: I did not think that my hon. Friend would answer my question. The hon. Member for Reading, West succinctly said that the essence of this measure is the fact that illegal street trading is carried out under the flag of convenience, as he put it, of touting. I asked my hon. Friend to explain how he could distinguish between pedlars and illegal street trading—nobody in this House wants to attack pedlars who are not involved in illegal street trading—but he said that it would be out of order to answer that point. However, it would not be out of order and, as on so many occasions, he has failed to answer my question.
	Nevertheless I will answer the question. I made it clear on Second Reading that I was happy to negotiate with my hon. Friend—I hoped that it would be in good faith—on the removal of the touting clause from the Canterbury City Council Bill, which would bring it into line with the others. I hope that it will be possible, when the House authorities consider the arrangements for Committee, for the Canterbury City Council Bill to be grouped with the other two Bills that have already received their Second Reading, because that is the only substantial difference.
	I do not wish to echo all the points that were made on Second Reading, and very well tonight, by the hon. Member for Reading, West, but it would be scandalous at any time for struggling honest businesses to be ruined by small numbers—or, in Canterbury's case, by relatively large numbers—of people using peddling licences to act as street traders. It is not only the legitimate street traders, paying their £800 a year, who are affected, but the shops next door, which are also being wrecked by those people. It really is extraordinarily bad news in the current recession. It is no exaggeration to say that businesses in Canterbury will go to the wall because this measure has not gone through, and that greatly saddens me. It is why I ask the House to revive the Bill. My final point is that in his remarks, my hon. Friend—

Christopher Chope: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Brazier: I am willing to give way once more, but each time I have tried to debate a point with my hon. Friend—including all the way through the Second Reading debate—I have found him unwilling to answer the particular problems that I have raised. I am happy to give way on the issue of expense, but before I do so let me say that he raised the question of the expense involved in the procedure. I want to remind people of the expense involved in trying to deal with pedlars who are illegally street trading. I set out on Second Reading—I will not bore you or stretch your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by doing so again—how terribly expensive it is to cope with a street trader hiding behind a peddling licence. I raised that point in discussion with my hon. Friend, and not once did he reply to my point. I hope that this time he will do so.

Christopher Chope: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. In paragraph 64 of the Durham university report, I found what I hope is a very succinct summary of my concern. It states:
	"In conjunction with these responses"
	on the issue of distinguishing between street trading and peddling,
	"it should be noted that some local authorities showed a tendency to conflate rogues, illegal street traders and pedlars into a single group, and/or use inflammatory or pejorative language in association with pedlars: 'Pedlars regard themselves as untouchable and are often quite rude if challenged'",
	and so on. They are described as
	"'hit and run merchants' who come from nowhere and disappear again into the night. They may be selling counterfeit goods",
	and so on. Such statements have been made too often in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that it is wrong to conflate the street trader, the lawful pedlar and the rogue.

Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend has repeated his allegation again, so it is clearly on the record twice. To establish his point, he needs to show a point where one of the promoters of the Bills has conflated the two things. There is no point in going back to the Durham report for it. The plain fact is that all the way through these proceedings the MPs supporting the promoters of these Bills have sought to explain that nobody wants to attack genuine pedlars—people who go from place to place, selling their wares. He has accused us again of conflation, and the record will show that, but the problem is pedlars who act as illegal street traders and can hide behind their pedlars' licences. The kind of inflammatory statement that he quoted from the Durham report may well be dug out in relation to some councils, but I have heard nobody in the various debates—I have been here for them all, except for part of the last one—who has conflated the two groups in the way that he suggests.
	I have spoken for longer than I intended. The plain fact is that legitimate businesses will go to the wall because of the activities of such people, and I urge the House to allow all four of these Bills, not just the Canterbury City Council Bill, to be carried over.

John Heppell: I shall be very brief. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) referred to the fact that the sponsors are not speaking for these Bills. May I make the point, so that it is on the record, that all the Nottingham MPs are here tonight to vote for the Nottingham City Council Bill and the other Bills covered by the motion? We have not spoken because the hon. Gentleman's machinations have meant, as we know, that to speak could do harm to the Bill.
	I shall say no more, and hope that other Members will be as brief as I have been. The Bill was a good Bill when it started. The machinations of the hon. Member for Christchurch have not made it a bad Bill. The will of the House is that the Bill should be revived, and I hope that it will be revived, along with the other three Bills.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 8.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That the promoters of the Canterbury City Council Bill, Leeds City Council Bill, Nottingham City Council Bill and Reading Borough Council Bill, which were originally introduced in this House in Session 2007-08 on 22 January 2008, should have leave to proceed with the Bills in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of bills).

PETITION
	 — 
	Support for Mutual Societies

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I wish to present a petition to the House of Commons on behalf of more than 30,000 people across Northern Ireland. It relates to the Presbyterian mutual society. The petition is as follows:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of the Presbyterian Mutual Society,
	Sheweth that the Prime Minister should provide similar governmental guarantees to UK mutual societies as for banks; notes that the catalyst for the financial difficulties experienced by the Presbyterian Mutual Society arose after the Government applied their existing guarantee under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to a number of UK Banks and Icelandic Banks; notes that this resulted in a large number of investors with the Presbyterian Mutual Society withdrawing their deposits; and acknowledges that with Government intervention the Society could be returned to its sound financial footing.
	We note that in the case of the Dunfermline building society in Scotland, there was Government intervention. We hope that Presbyterians in Northern Ireland can be treated with the same degree of generosity by a Presbyterian Prime Minister and his Government. The petition continues:
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will urge the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to include the Presbyterian Mutual Society and seek to secure appropriate intervention from the financial sector to provide a basis on which all members will be able to recover their investments in full.
	I thank colleagues in the House from Northern Ireland constituencies, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell), and the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), both of whom have supported the cause of savers with the Presbyterian mutual society. The petitioners pray that the House will come to their aid in this matter, and the petition concludes:
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	[P000347]

COUNCILLOR PAUL BUCHANAN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —(Helen Goodman.)

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am delighted to have the opportunity in an Adjournment debate to talk about Mr. Paul Buchanan. This is a short debate with a short title, but I am here to tell the House of some extraordinary events in the life of an elected councillor for the county of Somerset.
	Mr. Buchanan is not a constituent of mine; nor, by any stretch of the imagination, is he is a supporter of my party. He is a Liberal Democrat, so we ought to be classified as sworn political enemies. However, sometimes there are bigger things in life than party loyalty, and when a man is made to suffer without good reason and has no right of redress, it matters not a jot what his party loyalties may be.
	I became interested in the case of Paul Buchanan partly because his own political leadership disowned him. It puzzled me that a man should have a grievance that nobody was prepared to hear. Even his local Member of Parliament refused to take up the case. I am pleased to say that this House has a long and proud tradition of defending the weak and standing up for those who have no voice. Parliament, after all, is supposed to be the highest court in the land.
	Tonight I bring before the House the strange case of Paul Buchanan. His world has been turned upside down, his career prospects have been badly damaged, his political ambitions in local government have been ruined and his good name has been rubbished, all because of the actions of one highly placed, highly paid and quite unscrupulous public official—the chief executive of Somerset county council, Mr. Alan Jones. This is a true story. Mr. Jones is guilty of deliberate deceit and victimisation. He deliberately set out to destroy Paul Buchanan. The tactics that Jones used make Damian McBride look like an angel.
	I have the evidence right here. To his credit, Mr. Buchanan has at no time broken any confidences to me. All my information has come from available transcripts which were deemed by the Adjudication Panel for England to be "in the public domain". The documents that I have collected were part of recent hearings against Paul Buchanan. I attended one of the proceedings.
	The evidence against Alan Jones is damning. On 4 April 2007 Alan Jones composed a six-page letter of complaint about Paul Buchanan and sent it to the Standards Board for England. At that time Mr. Buchanan was deputy leader of his party and hoped to be the new leader. Without the intervention of the chief executive, he would probably have succeeded, but with a very poisoned pen Jones totally undermined him.
	The letter is a bizarre piece of writing. Jones attempts to play the reasonable father-figure, describing Mr. Buchanan as "young, able and enthusiastic". Then the venom starts to flow. Paul Buchanan is accused of secretiveness, undermining staff, aggression, threatening behaviour, rudeness, intimidation, anger, disrespect, fraud, sexism, racism, homophobia, and abuse of his office as an elected councillor. There is barely concealed hatred of the man in every sentence. It is the ultimate hatchet job. Indeed, if there was a prize for the black arts, Alan Jones would win it, hands down.
	Jones did not want the Standards Board to investigate. He wanted an instant political execution. He asked for Buchanan to be suspended there and then. I can only hazard a guess at the reaction when his letter was received. The Standards Board would have been forgiven for thinking that Paul Buchanan was an unstable nutcase with homicidal tendencies. In fact, the really unstable character was the one who made the complaint—Somerset county council's most senior officer. Unfortunately, the Standards Board does not investigate complaints against officers; there is a gaping hole in the justice system. It is manifestly unfair that no legal process has yet been created by which officers can be independently investigated—unless, that is, they commit actual crimes. I invite the Minister to comment on that vital general point when he responds, and to see whether he can do anything to help.
	The Standards Board had very few options. It was obliged to launch a full-blown inquiry into Mr. Buchanan, even if it doubted the wild complaints about him that Alan Jones had brought. The board went about its task relentlessly for two years. It conducted literally hundreds of interviews and produced thousands of pages of transcripts. When it rejected Alan Jones's first batch of complaints, Jones wasted no additional time disputing its findings. I sympathise a little with the Standards Board; it was dealing with a deranged obsessive. The first investigator, or ethical standards officer, as the board calls them, retired halfway through the tortuous process—probably exhausted. Lawyers came and went, and it dragged on. Heaven only knows what it cost—and the result? Eventually, 16 of the original complaints were rejected completely and four others were referred to a higher court—the Adjudication Panel. That meant more delay and more uncertainty for Paul Buchanan.
	The panel, with a bench of barristers in tow, finally met in Somerset over recent weeks. Key witnesses were called to give evidence again—remarkably few, actually, because most did not want to have anything to do with it. The panel had access to all the original documentation and threw out three more complaints. One tiny charge was upheld. Paul Buchanan had been heard swearing under his breath. He was deemed to have been a little careless and ticked off with a censure—the mildest possible sanction. That is mad. Frankly, after two years in limbo, my language would have been extremely fruity and very loud indeed.
	My fascination with the case, however, is with what really lies behind it. Why on earth did a chief executive, earning £160,000 a year, with 17,000 staff and huge responsibilities, go to so much trouble to make complaints about a young, ambitious councillor? Mr. Jones's explanation was beyond belief. He said that Mr. Buchanan's behaviour was
	"capable of damaging the council's continued improvement and external reputation."
	That statement would stack up only if the charges against him were proved, but they were not. Paul Buchanan has been acquitted of everything serious. Let us remember the allegations: secretiveness, undermining staff, aggression, threatening behaviour, rudeness, intimidation, anger, disrespect, fraud, sexism, racism, homophobia—and, I suspect, leaving the toilet seat up.
	It is not credible that Alan Jones made an innocent mistake in complaining about Buchanan. Mr. Jones's charges were too specific, and they were backed up with too much detail and too much personal bile. It was a wholly personal vendetta. It is open to anyone—fellow councillors, council employees and ordinary members of the public—to make complaints to the Standards Board, but Jones extracted statements from junior staff who were perhaps too scared to go against the boss.
	So, why on earth did Jones want to get Buchanan? And, what had Buchanan got on Jones? I am sorry if it sounds conspiratorial, but there is a big hint of conspiracy in all this. Mr Buchanan unfortunately knew too much for his own good. Back in 2005 there was gossip about Alan Jones having an affair with a member of staff called Jenny Hastings. Everybody at county hall knew about it; it was no secret. What Buchanan did not know, however, was that when the affair came to an end, Ms Hastings made very serious allegations of harassment against Alan Jones.
	Obviously, engaging in such harassment is a sackable offence. The allegations had to be dealt with by a confidential panel of elected members, including Councillor Cathy Bakewell, the lady who led the council at the time. The panel did not reach a quick conclusion; everything was delayed because Mrs. Bakewell was taken seriously ill halfway through. These things happen. Paul Buchanan was then deputised to take on many of her responsibilities, but Cathy Bakewell never told him about the Alan Jones inquiry. Alan Jones, however, did tell him—and in lurid detail. Perhaps he wanted to curry favour with the man most likely to be the next leader of the county council. Until that moment, Paul Buchanan was unaware of any allegations and did not know about the confidential panel either; he was not even on it. Jones pleaded with Buchanan to help. Buchanan rightly told Jones that he could not. Big mistake: Alan Jones has a long memory and, as we will see, bears grudges.
	By the time Councillor Cathy Bakewell returned to work, it was deemed too dangerous to punish Jones by sacking him. At that time, Jenny Hastings was threatening an industrial tribunal—a very public way of exposing the antics of her erstwhile lover. Meanwhile, the Audit Commission was due to inspect the council. There is nothing like a four-star sex scandal to scupper a council's chances of an "excellent" four-star rating. Behind closed doors and with the help of ACAS, a deal was sealed to buy off Ms Hastings. It cost £140,000 of taxpayers' money—slightly less than Alan Jones's annual salary. Somerset county council thought that it had got everyone involved to sign a confidentiality agreement, but it carelessly left at least one person off the list, which is why I know how much she was paid. There were also some very large extra payments. In the next couple of years, millions of pounds were spent on mysterious "staff restructuring" at Somerset county council. Did any of that money help buy the silence of those on the inside who knew the gory details? Were those in the know given golden goodbyes when they retired?
	Life at the county council limped on, however. Paul Buchanan continued as deputy leader, taking a particular interest in two projects close to Alan Jones's heart. Both men wanted Somerset to be transformed into a unitary authority, taking responsibility from the five existing district councils. In my opinion, it was a mad idea, but Mr. Buchanan is a Liberal Democrat, so we have to allow for a certain degree of woolly-headed lunacy. Both Buchanan and Jones also wanted to see improvements in how services were delivered. So, in a peculiar fashion, Jones and Buchanan looked like peas in a pod. Jones was the go-getting chief executive, albeit with a weakness for women; Buchanan was business-savvy and energetic. What a team! Except that the go-getting chief executive much preferred compliant pussycat politicians who sit quietly in the corner and purr when officers tell them what to do. Mr. Buchanan had a failing: he was apt to ask too many questions. Furthermore, he came equipped with a brain.
	The Minister may know of my close interest in the development and malfunction of a joint venture company involving Somerset county council, Avon and Somerset police and IBM.

Sadiq Khan: indicated assent.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: The Minister is nodding; he is aware of that.
	The outfit is called Southwest One, and it is busy making a total hash of everything in the county. Its computer system does not work, it cannot place orders or pay bills and it is certainly not saving any money. Southwest One is the dubious end product of Alan Jones's desire radically to improve services—mad. The Jones philosophy is "anything goes", which explains how he was able to hire the wife of Avon and Somerset's chief constable to set it all up. Sue Barnes became Somerset's project director without any kind of formal interview. Her hubby, Colin Port, is now on the board of Southwest One. Funny old world, isn't it?
	Paul Buchanan was involved in assessing the merits of the commercial bidders back in 2006. He was, after all, deputy leader and he knows a thing or two about business. There were three rivals: Capita, which, as we all know, is a big player in local government; British Telecom, for which Alan Jones got a consultancy in Somerset; and IBM. With millions at stake, such companies spend hundreds of thousands of pounds polishing their bids. They twitch if anyone speaks out of turn because there is so much at stake.
	On 12 February 2007, Sue Barnes went to London with Paul Buchanan to meet IBM representatives. My sources in the industry tell me that IBM was badly rattled. It had heard rumours that Alan Jones had been singing the praises of BT during a late-night drinking session at a conference of chief executives. I forgot to mention that Mr. Jones likes to unwind with a glass in his hand—but this time, unfortunately for him, he was overheard. Sue Barnes and Paul Buchanan, to their credit, had to pour oil on IBM's troubled waters; otherwise, the whole project would have gone belly up.
	Within a day or two of that meeting, Jones's attitude changed completely; it was the trigger that launched the campaign to destroy Buchanan. Jones sent a letter to Councillor Cathy Bakewell, the leader, about Buchanan's behaviour and persuaded his four most senior directors to sign it. Then Bakewell came to talk to the management board—that is, Jones and his four toady directors. She promised to "deal with Buchanan". In fact, she called in the leader of the Lib Dems on the Local Government Association as a kind of mediator. Bad call. That particular individual, Richard Kemp from Liverpool—Jones's home town; they may even be mates—is known in Liberal circles as the Jackal. Assassination is his speciality, and Jones went to London to give him ammo—signed statements from people in and around Jones's office alleging Buchanan's "unspeakable" behaviour. Jones is a bully; his staff probably signed those statements in their own blood, for all I know.
	I apologise to the House, because I am forced to go into great detail in order to explain the way in which the chief executive has immersed himself in party politics and the political process. Chief executives, I had always thought, are meant to leave politics to the politicians, but at Somerset county council, with a weak leader on her way out, anything goes for Mr. Jones.
	The Jackal came to Somerset with a cunning plan: if Buchanan quietly resigned as deputy leader, promised to shut up and be a good boy, and accepted "mentoring" from Jones and the Jackal, then the charges would be dropped. Mr. Buchanan was not playing. If he had agreed to the Jackal's plans, he would have been accepting his own guilt—and, as we all know, he was not guilty of anything except swearing, once, under his breath. Mr. Buchanan suggested another mentor, a far more respected and accomplished figure—the former leader of Somerset county council, Sir Chris Clarke. Mentoring in local government is a semi-official process. A contract is drawn up between one of the major local government quangos and the council involved. Somerset did agree to sign up Sir Chris to mentor Paul Buchanan, but that did not stop Jones's campaign to destroy the man.
	On 27 March 2007—the very day that the Government announced a shortlist of councils seeking unitary status—the Jackal e-mailed Lib Dem leaders, copying it to Jones, urging a full complaint to the Standards Board. He said:
	"It is an ideal time to deal with this because of the Unitary News".
	Sound familiar? A good day to bury bad news? Now we know why Richard Kemp is called the Jackal. No serious attempt was ever made to deal with Jones's complaints in-house—and that was what was meant to happen. Instead, Jones used the sledgehammer of the Standards Board, and the depths to which he and his henchmen have stooped are beyond belief.
	This is a passage from a transcript of evidence to the Standards Board, which seems to be a deliberate attempt to blacken Paul Buchanan's name by suggesting that he was romantically involved with Sue Barnes, the project director and wife of the chief constable:
	"Sue and Paul Buchanan were pretty much ensconced together at the back of the bus, sharing information and having a good time and having a laugh and a joke. I think what struck me was how close they were in terms of their body language...lots of whispers and laughter and what have you....I'm not suggesting for one moment it was inappropriate!"
	Oh yeah? Pull the other one! The transcript was scored through, presumably by the man who gave the evidence—Roger Kershaw, Jones's No. 2. It looks like, and is, an organised dirty tricks campaign: first, someone uses innuendo in evidence, and then they are allowed to correct their evidence before the other side sees it. Somebody close to Kershaw sent it, anonymously, to me.
	The interview between Kershaw and the Standards Board was conducted in June 2007. It contains another glaring untruth. Mr. Kershaw states that after Sue Barnes and Paul Buchanan went to see IBM in February, Sue Barnes's contract was terminated. In fact, Sue Barnes served the entire term of her contract until the IBM deal was signed in late September. What on earth was going on, and why in the name of sanity did it go on so long?
	The Standards Board rejected the first batch of Jones's complaints because they were plainly ridiculous—so Jones started complaining about its decision. By now, the chief executive of Somerset county council was behaving like Victor Meldrew with a Kalashnikov. It is no wonder that Southwest One is regarded as a dismal failure. Jones was obsessed with his vendetta. Next, he unilaterally severed the mentoring contract between Somerset and Sir Chris Clarke that was established to help Buchanan. Buchanan hit back with a letter to the council citing incidents of drunkenness, womanising and bullying by Jones. He could not take them up with the Standards Board, because there is no mechanism to do so.
	Jones cross-volleyed with yet more complaints, this time claiming that Buchanan was bullying him by complaining about his behaviour. You could not make it up. It is a plot full of bureaucracy, bonking and a chief executive who has gone totally bonkers.

Dan Norris: You have made some very serious allegations, and no doubt you believe them to be founded. May I ask whether under the umbrella of parliamentary privilege you have given the people whom you are accusing of very serious things—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be using the third person.

Dan Norris: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
	Has the hon. Gentleman given the people against whom he is making accusations the opportunity to answer these points, and has he shown them his speech?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank the hon. Gentleman. He came in a little late, and if I may I should like to tell him that all this is in the public domain. It is all part of the transcripts that were given to the Standards Board. Everything that I am speaking about is in the public domain already, so the people involved have had ample chance to examine it. The Standards Board makes all its findings public, and all the information can be got hold of.

Dan Norris: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the people involved have seen the speech that he is giving today? Have they had a chance to digest it and comment on it before his using the privilege of the House in this way?

Ian Liddell-Grainger: No, because quite honestly the information is already in the public domain. If it were not, I would have had no problem with that, but what I am saying is a catalogue of what is already known. I am putting it in chronological order and saying to the Minister that we need to have the ability to bring about investigation of senior officers by the Standards Board. The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and the problem is that there is no mechanism for anybody in councils to criticise chief executives, including in his area's unitary council.
	As I said earlier, it is important that we can stand up for people whose lives have been blighted by a situation that is outside their control. Everything that I have talked about is already known, and I am trying to bring in front of the House the facts of how a man's life can be ruined—he is a Liberal Democrat, so I have no truck with him—by one person demanding his head when the only thing that he is guilty of is swearing under his breath after two and a half years. That cannot be right. It is important that Members have the ability to stand up and defend people, and that is what I am trying to do. The House is, after all, meant to be the highest forum in the land. I have made all this information public on my website, although obviously not the speech, because I am just giving it. All the way through, for two and a half years, I have felt that the situation is out of control. At no stage have I held back from my beliefs. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it is important to say that all this is already in the public domain.
	Before the final hearing, Jones was eagerly trawling county hall trying to persuade or threaten anybody to give any evidence against Buchanan. It was a waste of time. The proof came with the sensible, sober decision of the panel to acquit Mr. Buchanan. Paul Buchanan is still a Liberal Democrat, but his party will not have him as a council candidate in Somerset. He has been stitched up and, I am afraid, let down. The Liberal Democrats emerge from this sordid affair as weak-willed, mealy-mouthed and yellow—that is their party colour, after all. Alan Jones emerges as precisely what he is—a busted flush. Chief executives have a duty to behave like officers and, I would say, gentlemen. Jones is no gentleman, and he has certainly lost all moral authority to serve as an officer. I am afraid that the time has come for him to go.

Sadiq Khan: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing the debate. I thoroughly enjoyed his speech, and it is not often that I can say that in an Adjournment debate. I am pleased that he was able to speak candidly about issues about which he feels passionate.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the conduct regime for local authority members, to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, and the work of the Adjudication Panel for England and the Standards Board for England and the valuable role that they play in ensuring that high standards of conduct are maintained by local authority members. I welcome the debate, which gives me a chance to put on record the Government's support for the conduct regime for local authority members and allows me to discuss the treatment of misconduct in that regime. That goes to the core of the debate.
	I should make it clear at the outset that I cannot intervene in individual cases—the hon. Gentleman knows that from discussions that we have had.
	 Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	 Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—( Mr. Ian Austin.)

Sadiq Khan: It is right that I should not be able to intervene in individual cases, as that guarantees the impartiality of the conduct regime and investigation process. Although I am happy to discuss the work of the Standards Board for England and the Adjudication Panel in general terms, I will not comment on or engage in debate about any specific ongoing case.
	As the debate's title suggests and as the hon. Gentleman outlined, the case concerns Councillor Paul Buchanan, a former deputy leader of Somerset county council, but given that the Adjudication Panel is due to convene shortly to determine the outcome of several outstanding allegations, I will not comment on it. However, I should like to address briefly the conduct regime and the two points that the hon. Gentleman raised with which I can deal specifically later in my short speech.
	In this country, we have naturally high standards of probity, accountability and objectivity—expectations of behaviour that demand a serious, reasonable, robust and fair conduct regime. It must be fair to the public and to all in public life. That applies equally to those elected to local authorities and to Members of Parliament. It is worth remembering that the conduct regime was introduced in the Local Government Act 2000 to promote high standards of ethical behaviour by local authority members. It gave a clear ethical framework for local authority members to work within, and made clear to the electorate the standards of behaviour that they could expect from those whom they voted into office.
	In 2007, a revised model code of conduct for local authority members was issued, which was yet clearer, simpler and more proportionate. It removed barriers to members' ability to speak up for those they represent, for example, on planning and licensing issues, and has been well received by local government. All local authorities have followed it in their own codes, by which their members must abide.
	In May 2008, the Government fulfilled their White Paper commitment, as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to introduce a more locally based conduct regime for members and co-opted members of local authorities in England. Devolving responsibility for conduct issues to local authorities provides them with greater ownership of the conduct regime and local conduct issues, and boosts their role in promoting and maintaining a culture of high standards of behaviour. That belief is shared throughout the local government world.
	The Standards Board for England, which until that point had been responsible for investigating alleged breaches of the code of conduct, has assumed its new role as the strategic regulator of local authority standards committees, responsible for monitoring their performance and issuing guidance on the conduct regime. The Standards Board continues to investigate the most serious allegations of misconduct.
	Let us be clear: the regime accords with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, including the recommendation to establish a more locally based decision-making regime for investigating and determining all but the most serious misconduct allegations, but with the Standards Board at the centre of the revised regime with a new strategic, regulatory role to ensure consistency.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to serious allegations. It is a sad fact of political life that disagreement about issues can occasionally spill out of the correct channels for resolution and take on the form of remarks or accusations that suggest personal enmity. It is good to hear forthright views expressed vigorously—healthy debate is good for a healthy democracy and ensures that issues are thoroughly and publicly examined. That is true, whether in the Chamber, a council meeting or a parish hall. To some extent, we can also expect public figures to comment on issues in a private capacity—we are familiar with examples of that from our national and local media. For example, councillors with opposing views clearly express their opinions in the letters column of local newspapers.
	As modern media have developed, so have the great opportunities that they afford for communication; indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to his website. That is one of the reasons why my Department recently consulted on proposed changes to the code of recommended practice on local authority publicity. We want to remove barriers to communication between councillors and those whom they serve, by allowing, for instance, the local authority to host a councillor's blog. However, with that freedom comes responsibility. There is no place in political debate for making hurtful, potentially damaging and unfounded accusations. That is why we take bringing the office of a councillor into disrepute so seriously and why doing so constitutes a breach of the local authority members' code of conduct.
	The other point that the hon. Gentleman made was about using the conduct regime as a political weapon. I am not insensitive in this context to the allegation that unscrupulous individuals may consider that the conduct regime can be used maliciously as a political weapon. I am conscious of that threat, but when we consider steps to halt what some might consider to be obviously false allegations intended to waste time and resources, we must take great care to ensure that in so doing we do not gag legitimate allegations.
	Before the new regime, it was for the Standards Board for England to assess, and if necessary investigate, the some 3,500 allegations made about the behaviour of councillors every year. Under the devolved regime, the Standards Board investigates only the most serious allegations. One of the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman was about delay. Indeed, the facts of the delay are a source of serious concern. The Standards Board has a target of completing 90 per cent. of its cases within six months; he mentioned a period of two years and explained why there had been unfortunate problems in the case. The 90 per cent. target is a challenging target, but he will be interested to know that last year the Standards Board did not just meet it, but exceeded it, completing 96 per cent. of cases on target.
	I realise that it can be trying for those who are subject to an allegation that takes some time to investigate and resolve. Investigations can become protracted for a number of reasons. Some cases are complex and require the collection of evidence from a number of witnesses. In addition, fresh evidence may come to light during the investigative process. We must also consider the fact that, unfortunately, the investigation can be protracted owing to malicious behaviour on the part of the subject or subjects of the allegation, or perhaps others who have reason to fear its outcome.
	Let me turn to the issue of misconduct. The Adjudication Panel for England, the Standards Board for England and the standards committees of local authorities are all part of a conduct regime underpinned by the local authority members' code of conduct. The code makes it clear to councillors and their communities what might constitute a personal or a prejudicial interest, for example, and it addresses issues such as gifts and hospitality, which are clearly not relevant to this case. However, the code also addresses fundamental issues of behaviour and conduct.
	Founded upon the seven principles of public life, the code states, for instance, that councillors must not abuse their position as councillors and that they must not disclose confidential information in an inappropriate manner. The code directly addresses matters more fundamental still—not just those that are fundamental to public life, but principles so fundamental that I hope that we would all strive to meet them unconsciously in everyday life. The code explicitly states:
	"You must treat others with respect",
	and says:
	"You must not...bully any person"
	or "intimidate any person".
	Let us take bullying as the most obvious example. Bullying, I hope we can all agree, is unacceptable. It does not matter whether bullying happens in the playground, the workplace, the Chamber or the barracks—any civilized society rejects it. That is why bullying is in the code—because it is a serious issue when it happens between individuals, damaging people, and because it is a serious matter when it happens in a local authority, damaging the working of the authority and, potentially, confidence in democracy if exposed, and the delivery of services if not. Simply put, unacceptable behaviour is not tolerated. Those who are guilty of misconduct are investigated and sanctions are brought against them. The conduct regime, underpinned by the members' code, will ensure that that continues to be the case.
	The hon. Gentleman raised the question whether the Government should allow standards committees to investigate, for example, allegations against local authority officials such as chief executives. He will be pleased to know that we recently held a consultation on whether there should be a model code of conduct for local authority officials, just as there is one for local authority members. We are currently considering the more than 1,000 responses to the consultation that we have received. The consultation included proposals to transport some aspects of the members' code to senior officials. The code will form part of an employee's terms and conditions of employment and could be used in any disciplinary procedures. I should just add that whether the standards committees or other bodies should have the authority to enforce the code is an issue on which we shall consult.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I thank the Minister and I welcome his words. I am delighted to hear that, but unfortunately it will not help this gentleman. Will the Minister give an indication of the time scale involved? I know that we are in the middle of the consultation, but he must have a thought in the back of his mind as to when this will happen. It is extremely important in trying, as it were, to even things out on both sides.

Sadiq Khan: I think it is important to have political consensus in this area. I do not wish to make cheap political points, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party is committed to abolishing the Standards Board, so the idea of having a parallel system for senior officials would obviously not work if the Standards Board regime were abolished. I am keen to move forward as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman's example is not the only example of allegations—these are allegations—against senior officials, and the issue of public confidence is important.
	The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in the meantime, it is open to the employers of senior officials to take disciplinary action if they have breached express or implied terms in their contracts of employment. I nevertheless understand the point that he has raised and the sense of urgency, as we do not want examples of serious allegations against senior officials not being taken seriously or not being considered by a similar code.
	Before concluding, I want to address another issue that the hon. Gentleman raised—Southwest One. My Department has no formal involvement in the development of Southwest One, but if allegations of corruption are made, they should clearly be viewed as a criminal matter requiring the involvement of the police. If there is any evidence of corruption in this case, it should be turned over the Serious Fraud Office.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: There is no indication that there has been criminal intent, partly because Avon and Somerset police are involved, as is the hon. Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris). What has happened here is that there has been a desperation to do a deal for procurement, which neither side disagrees with. We agree in the House that efficiency is right. It is the undue haste and the way it was set up that has been the problem, but there is nothing criminal about that. It is just that the procedures were not followed and when somebody said, "Look, this is wrong," they sacked him. Another illustration is that the union leader, Nigel Behan, who has also tried to lead on this, has been fired as well. He is seeking reinstatement at the moment, so the issue has deepened, but there is no criminal intent.

Sadiq Khan: Let me conclude. I recognise that investigations into allegations of misconduct impact on reputations, careers and lives; they are not undertaken lightly. I recognise, too, that there are those who would try to twist the conduct regime—which is intended to give councillors an ethical framework to work within and to give the public a clear expectation of the standards of behaviour they can expect from those they voted for—for their own ends. I believe that the conduct regime is robust, reasonable and proportionate and that it provides a framework to work within and an enforcement method to address those who are guilty of misconduct, so helping to maintain confidence in democracy.
	I would like to thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater for raising some important issues tonight and my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Dan Norris) for his important interventions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand why I have not gone into specific detail about the history of the case he raised. I know that the Under-Secretary for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), was due to meet the hon. Gentleman today, and I am sure that he will be happy to reschedule the meeting in order to deal with the important issues raised about Southwest One.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.